IGF CultureWatch

Updated July 17

Yes, this poll showing majority support for anti-gay state marriage amendments and, in general, candidates that support them-including among "soft Democrats"-is from the anti-gay Family Research Council. But it's also largely consistent with other polling. If there are polls showing more optimistic findings, I'd like to see them.

Also, the Washington Blade takes a clear-eyed look at opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions among a big majority of African Americans. The Blade reports that:

two-thirds of black Americans are against gay marriage. Although the numbers vary by poll, research shows most blacks oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The findings come as some surveys show a majority of whites have dropped their objections to same-sex unions.

Remember that this is a core Democratic demographic that much LGBT activist propaganda portrays as our steadfast progressive allies in the grand coalition of the left.

Even with an Obama victory, the passage of anti-gay marriage amendments in California and Florida remains frighteningly likely. Yet the overwhelming energy of national LGBT groups seems to be targeted at aiding a Democratic presidential win, not defeating anti-gay amendments, just as it was eight years ago.

More. I'm all for boycotting major donors to the anti-gay marriage drive in California or elsewhere; that's democracy in action. It's what the beltway LGBT groups ought to be doing if they weren't so all consumed by working on behalf of the Obama campaign.

Furthermore. Richard Nixon predicted same-sex marriage by 2000! From a Gail Collins op-ed in the NY Times:

Back in 1970, when Americans were still adjusting to the Supreme Court ruling that people of different races had a constitutional right to wed, someone suggested to President Richard Nixon that same-sex marriages would be next.

"I can't go that far; that's the year 2000," Nixon rejoined.

Collins comments, "Nixon was a little early." And if this November sees passage of anti-marriage amendments in California, Florida, and elsewhere, we may be looking at yet another generation of waiting. That's why defeating these amendment should be the #1 task for gay Americans and their political lobbies. Should be, but isn't. (After all, what mid-level political appointments can national LGBT activist leaders expect by working to defeat state amendments, as opposed to providing their unconditional support to their party's presidential campaign?)

I'm often critical of the Human Rights Campaign for turning itself into the LGBT fundraising arm of the Democratic Party. But it's good to remember that hard-core LGBT activist loonies are even more hostile to HRC, for all the wrong reasons.

A new statement from the San Francisco-based "And Castro for All" attacks HRC for what they claim is "HRC's ongoing refusal to support federal legislation that actually protects all LGBT people from employment discrimination." Actually, HRC does support transgender inclusion in the federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act that passed the House last year; it just didn't withhold its support when House leaders recognized that a bill covering cross-dressing and other transgender behaviors had no chance of passage, while one that dealt exclusively with workplace sexual orientation discrimination had an excellent chance of passing.

(Apparently, both congressional leaders and LGBT activists, including HRC, have now decided to put the whole shebang on hold until next year, when they hope larger Democratic majorities might allow the transgendered-incusive bill to advance. I think that's highly unlikely, but it allows Senate Democrats to avoid voting on sexual orientation protections during an election year.)

In any event, the San Francisco lefties offer a parting shot claiming that HRC's equal sign logo is actually "two gold bars" that:

"represent homosexuals living in the middle of the country-rather than the actual full diversity of our beautiful, global LGBT community."

So all those unhip gay people living between the coasts are not part of the "beautiful diversity" of the "LGBT community," perhaps because they're perceived as ... too white(?), too hard-working(?), or maybe just too non-transgressive? Hey HRC and your job-holding contributors, unconditional support for Obama just doesn't cut it anymore, rock the system-wise.

The anti-gay American Family Association has announced what will be a completely ineffectual boycott of McDonald's because of the fast-food giant's involvement with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The move follows ineffectual AFA boycotts of Disney (for "its embrace of the homosexual lifestyle"), Ford (for running ads in some gay publications) and Target stores.

What's striking about the AFA's hit list is that the group's wrath is directed at the most iconic of American companies. Outside the fever swamps of the religious right or, for different reasons (e.g., "globalization") the anti-capitalist left, these are the companies beloved most by hard-working, family-centric Americans. It's a sure sign of the increasingly farcical marginalization of the AFA and its ilk.

The Washington Post reports that:

Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.

While I doubt that corporations are actually targeting the small transgender market - a bit of p.c. boilerplate that the journalist picked up from LGBT activist groups - the gay market is a significant demographic.

Once again, free markets work to sweep away the ineffectual, inefficient and irrational (including unprofitable prejudice) when allowed by the state to do so.

More. So much for the hapless AFA's boycott efforts: Public Radio's "Marketplace" just ran a story on U.S. auto makers competing to capture the gay market. General Motors, for instance, sponsored a "speed dating" session at the Detroit gay pride festival. The transcript + audio is here. (Hat tip: Rick Sincere.)

No one's death is cause for celebration, but Jesse Helms's retirement from politics certainly was. My take (2002) on the man who banned people with HIV from entering America (you really had to be a special kind of human being to think of that):

He is often referred to...as "Senator No." Better would be "Senator Zero," as in "zero-sum." Reagan made conservatism credible by showing that it could solve problems. It could make headway against inflation, against economic entropy, against communism, even against "malaise." He believed that dynamic change, kindled by the prodigious energies of entrepreneurs and ordinary people, would produce win-win outcomes: a country that was stronger and also more genuinely compassionate, richer but also fairer.

Then there is Helms. In his world, if homosexuals win, heterosexuals lose. If blacks win, whites lose...

The difference between Reagan and Helms is the difference between a conservatism of hope and a conservatism of resentment. There are, I have little doubt, literally millions of Americans who would be conservatives today if not for the snarling visage of Jesse Helms.

In the fullness of time, history may write that Helms, despite his best efforts, did us a favor by helping discredit homophobia. A pity he degraded conservatism in the process.

This has been all over the web, but it's still fun. The rabidly anti-gay American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Mississippi, runs an online news service that's set to auto-change "gay" to "homosexual in wire copy stories. In several pieces about runner Tyson Gay's record-breaking performance at the U.S. Olympic track and field finals, the AFA auto-changed his name to "Tyson Homosexual," as noted over at outsports.com and elsewhere.

Even conservative blogger James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web (scroll down to "William was a Homosexual Deceiver") found the AFA's intransigence more than slightly ridiculous.

(Relatedly, a friend emails me that "I've seen lots of headlines this week saying 'Gay Breaks World Record,' and I've beamed with pride.")

Encouraging numbers from a new TIME/ABT poll: National support for same-sex marriage is up to 42 percent, with the 51 percent opposition only barely mustering a majority. Gay marriage has moved from the fringes only a few years ago to being within eyeshot of parity. And opposition to an anti-SSM amendment to the U.S. Constitution now runs 58 percent.

Maybe that's why Barack Obama, who has previously said he thinks marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples, has come out against a California state constitutional initiative to do exactly that. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is performing the same straddle-that is, opposing gay marriage but also opposing the effort to overturn it.

As IGF contributor Dale Carpenter points out over at volokh.com, being both anti-SSM and anti-anti-SSM makes little sense logically in a world where the policy is either to have SSM or not. But let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. The politicians are straddling because the climate of opinion is shifting. Obama and Schwarzenegger are barometers.

This Advocate article looks at efforts by the nonpartisan Gill Action Fund to elect fair-minded (read gay-friendly) officials beginning at the lowest levels and then supporting them throughout their careers, a strategy that has been used successfully by the religious right and, more generally, by the conservative GOPAC. Interestingly, the two leaders of this effort are Patrick Guerriero, a former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans, and Bill Smith, a former employee of Karl Rove.

These guys seem willing to play hardball for providing select candidates with financial support. That's a refreshing change from gay Democrats, whether at the Human Rights Campaign or elsewhere, and gay Republicans, who are primarily party activists looking to elect their party's candidates, and then expand their niche in the party as a reward for their service. That's fair enough (except when HRC pretends to be nonpartisan, when it clearly no longer is). But I'm glad to see efforts such as this one that don't put partisanship first.

From The Advocate: "Sen. Obama reminded us this week that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, something LGBT people might have easily forgotten over the course of the primary." Meanwhile, thousands of gay couples wed across California. And Obama still hasn't (that I could find) spoken out against the California anti-gay marriage amendment, despite the swooning endorsements and piles of cash he's receiving from smitten LGBT activists and their followers.

But, as former Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel observed on her Dynamist blog, "If Obama comes out forcefully against the amendment-as he should-his African-American base in California and elsewhere won't like it."

More. Postrel also notes that "Blacks are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage and supportive of the [California] initiative, so much so that gay marriage supporters are essentially writing them off...," and that if, as widely expected, Obama turns out a hugh African-American vote in the Golden State, it will help pass the anti-gay marriage amendment. That's a point I've also made.

Furthermore. On June 25, Andrew Sullivan takes exception and says I'm wrong about Obama's position on the California amendment. But I think reader "avee" has hit the nail on the head about what's behind the confusion. He writes:

One or more commenters claim that Obama has spoken out against the amendment; neither blogger Steve nor I can find any such statement.

[Obama] has said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that state's should decide. He has also suggested that he doesn't have a problem with what's happening in CA. That double-talk does not amount to speaking out against the amendment....

UPDATE. On July 1, Obama finally issued a statement opposing the California anti-gay marriage amendment. Good. Now let's see how enthusiastically he speaks out against it (if at all) while on the campaign trail.

And yes, McCain is backing the admendment. Bad boy. But he's not getting all the campaign support, including voter registration/mobilization and mass solicitation of gay donations, being orchestrated by HRC and friends, is he? That's why Obama is being held to a higher standard, and why his long delay in coming out against the amendment was not acceptable.

We just can't trust them with marriage.

My Wall Street Journal article making the case for gay marriage comes with rotating "sponsored links." So guess who's advertising? Along with "See Today's Mortgage Rates" and "AARP Auto Insurance" we have...

* Divorce Advice and Tips, from www.divorce360.com* Easy Online Divorce $299, from www.3stepdivorce.com

Why is heterosexual marriage even legal?

Not all LGBT Americans are celebrating the newly gained freedom to marry in California, it seems. Writing over at The Advocte, IGF contributing author James Kirchick takes aim at a particularly insipid example of politically correct victimization posturing, the claim that "racist" white gays are forcing marriage on same-gender loving African Americans.