IGF CultureWatch

Today NPR had an interesting, and ominous, story on how antidiscrimination law is (so far) trumping religious objections to gay marriage. For instance, when a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to let its property be used for a lesbian wedding, a civil-rights commission revoked a tax break for the site. Next stop: state court.

I hope the Methodists win, though better still if this complaint had never been brought. Gay-rights advocates will be badly burned politically-and the Madisonian in me thinks we'll deserve to be burned-if we use antidiscrimination law as a bulldozer against attempts by religious people to disassociate themselves from same-sex marriage. "It's the law, get used to it" is an unwise and insensitive approach. We can do 95% of what we want to do while letting religious people maintain conscientious-objector status. The other 5% percent is not worth the contention and fury it will cause.

As for using the law to force Christian photographers to shoot gay weddings (also covered in the NPR piece)-James Madison must be spinning in his grave. Freedom of religious conscience is the founding American freedom. For Pete's sake, live and let live.

I'd like to add to what Jonathan has written below, on allowing religious people "conscientious-objector status" when it comes to requiring actions that affirm the equality of same-sex unions.

Almost all gay people, I'd say, want to be treated equally by the government, with the same rights and responsibilities as all citizens. That includes the right to marry (even if they choose not to marrry) and, for most, the right to serve in the military (even if they would choose not to do so).

Some gay people, however, don't merely want equal treatment by the state. They want to use the state against those who, based on deeply felt religious belief, do not want to offer their services to same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies, as Jonathan describes below.

That's called progressivism, but others would say it's engaging in a legal vendetta against those who hold religious convictions that run counter to the principles of gay equality.

Another example that has garnered much publicity is from Canada, where an anti-gay pastor is appealing his conviction for writing a letter to a local paper that was found to defame gay people (who were compared to pedophiles and drug dealers), and thus to have contributed to a climate that fosters anti-gay violence.

The U.S. religious right is having a field day with this action in Alberta, charging that it's a reason to oppose measures such as the proposed federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act. And that, in turn, has led some supporters of gay nondiscrimination to defend the Alberta ruling, holding that speech that incites ill will should be banned.

But that is indeed a slippery slope, and one that runs counter to the right to express unpopular, and indeed ugly, opinions - a principle once defended by liberals.

More. Dale Carpenter, writing over at The Volokh Conspiracy, shares his thoughts on religious liberty and same-sex marriage. Excerpt:

Religious freedom is a first and founding principle of this country. I think religious accommodation to private persons and organizations should be generously provided, even where not required by the Constitution. At the very least, accommodation should be made where it can be offered without harming the protected class. For that reason, I think an exemption should have been offered in several of the cases cited in the NPR report....

While I'd be generous about accommodating the religious objections of private persons, I am very wary of introducing a system of exemption for public officers serving the public with taxpayers' money.

Here's a look at some items of interest in the wake of the CA marriage ruling:

A coalition of gay rights groups is urging out-of-state same-sex couples who marry in CA not to file lawsuits in their home states and in the federal courts demanding recognition of their unions. The reason:

"Pushing the federal government before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to get us bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer," the groups said....

When we've won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that point, we'll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we'll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states."

That seems like a healthy does of realpolitik, although I'd contend that focusing on winning legislatively is the way to make real advances while minimizing the risk of voter backlash (in CA, the legislature twice passed same-sex marriage bills, and the governor who vetoed them now says he supports the idea-and still all could be lost in November's ballot initiative when the masses vote on an anti-gay marriage state amendment that polls show has majority support).

I'm also guessing that some newly married gay couples will still sue in their home states, and that the likely results won't take us forward.

Somewhat related, but on a more positive note, Overlawyered.com looks at the ongoing Miller-Jenkins (Vermont-Virginia lesbian custody) legal battle, and how Virginia's highest court has now ruled in favor of the lesbian co-parent's visitation rights, in a state where conservatives have gone to great aims to deny any recognition of relationship rights for same-sex couples.

And the New York Times analyzes how "Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage," and finds:

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll. ...

The ability to see the other person's point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner's concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

Same-sex marriages is going to enrich the culture of marriage, it seems, just as some of us have always contended.

Feminist author Linda Hirshman's longish analysis in Sunday's Washington Post, Looking to the Future, Feminism Has to Focus, takes on the self-defeating aspects of the women's movement. The lessons she finds also apply, in many respects, to the fight for gay equality. For example, she writes that:

Faced with criticism that the movement was too white and middle class, many influential feminist thinkers conceded that issues affecting mostly white middle-class women-such as the corporate glass ceiling or the high cost of day care-should not significantly concern the feminist movement. Particularly in academic circles, only issues that invoked the "intersectionality" of many overlapping oppressions were deemed worthy.

But somehow, only those privileged by white middle-classness were expected to stop selfishly focusing on their own needs and goals. Hirshman continues:

Although other organizations work on women's issues when appropriate, none of the other social movements were much interested in making intersectionality their mission. The nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP... says nothing about feminism or homophobia or intersectionality in its mission statement.

An unmentioned exception, of course, is that the leading LGBT organizations make support for abortion rights and race-based preferences (see past Human Rights Campaign scorecards) litmus test issues and otherwise define themselves as working on behalf of the entire progressive agenda (see the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force's mission statement). But I digress. Hirshman goes on, and quotes Martha Burk, past president of the National Council of Women's Organizations (with brackets and ellipses in the original):

A lot of millennial feminism simply magnifies the weakness of the old movement. As Burk says: "When we started the [younger women's] task force, the young women wanted to identify it with environmentalism and prison rights and, and, and,..." Sound familiar?

She concludes:

So I'll invoke the insights of someone less than half my age, the young editor of Feministe, Jill Filipovic. "Mainstream liberal Democratic guys don't have to take feminism seriously because they know that, at the end of the day, we're going to be there," she told me.

Yep, sounds familiar.

At his arraignment at Gitmo on Thursday, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed described what drives his jihad:

"I consider all American constitution" evil, he said, because it permits "same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad," he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. "Do you understand?"

Meanwhile, Dan Blatt over at Gay Patriot reports a story ignored by U.S. mainstream and gay media:

At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.

I could find no reference to this beating on any of the [U.S.] gay news web-sites I checked....

Martin Bosma, gay issues spokesman of the Dutch Party of Freedom (PVV), said..."This shows how strong the Islamic gaybashers feel they are. Even at daylight, on Queen's Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike.... Either they will win, or we will win."

Or we could pretend that offering their allies tea with Obama will take care of all.

At 1:28 in this video clip of Hillary Clinton's concession speech today, check out the ecstatic reaction of the young people in the crowd behind her when she hits "gay and straight" in her litany of supporters.

We're not baggage any more. A rising generation of voters identifies with us...and will shun politicians who shun us.

Glad I lived to see it.

The Human Rights Campaign has now endorsed Obama for President, despite his refusal to oppose the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage (as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle), and despite his stated position that marriage can only be between a man and a woman-neither of which is mentioned in HRC's gushing endorsement announcement.

As noted in the item below, the Economist reports that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, and Obama is likely to fire up a much larger African-American turnout in California this November. So why an endorsement with no strings attached? Because HRC exists to serve the party, silly.

More. HRC even beat the Stonewall Democrats in getting out their endorsement message, showing which organization is the more effectively partisan.

Furthermore. The San Francisco Chronicle article states:

Obama ... has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman. With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.

Gee, maybe HRC should have gotten him to strongly, and publicly, condemn the amendment and work against its passage as a precondition for their endorsement, you think?

From The Economist:

Although California's major pollsters reckon the gap is closing, they have never found a majority of residents in favor of same-sex marriage. Whites are evenly divided on the subject, whereas Latinos are opposed and blacks are fiercely opposed. February's primary election suggests turnout among both minority groups will be high this November.

It's altogether possible that a huge African-American turnout for Obama (who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, just like the wording of the ballot initiative) could doom marriage equality in the nation's most populous state. But that's a scenario you won't hear discussed by Obama's LGBT supporters.

More. Since one commenter charges that my remarks about Obama's views on same-sex marriage are wrong, here are some facts:

Obama says: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." (From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire)

Proposed California marriage amendment says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Furthermore. Reader "avee" predicts:

Obama says he is against the CA marriage amendment [sic], but he also says that he is against gay marriage because marraige can only be between a man and woman. Expect his anti-gay-marriage quote to be reproduced in ads in the African-American media by amendment supporters before the election.

Actually, Obama apparently has not come out in opposition of the amendment, unlike GOP Gov. Schwarzenegger. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, supports civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples, but he has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman.

With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.

McCain, regrettably, endorsed the state amendment while continuing to oppose a federal amendment, but one would certainly expect more-much more- from Obama, who is and will be receiving droves of gay dollars and gay votes, and the adoration of LGBT activists throughout the land.

More still. It's now on the ballot. And it's unclear whether same-sex marriages performed over the next five months would be nullified if the amendment passes. Also, New York State's recent executive order instructing state agencies to recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is being challenged.

In Wednesday's Los Angeles Times, Macy's ran a full-page ad for its wedding registry that says, "First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it's a milestone every couple in California can celebrate."

A while back, Paul Varnell looked at the positive side of gays being (oh, the horror!) a target market.

The Macy's ad also brought to mind the article Capitalism and the Family, written last year by Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University, who noted that:

One final result of capitalism's effects on economic growth and the rise of the love-based marriage is perhaps the most controversial cultural issue of the early 21st century: the demand for the legalization of same-sex marriage. ...

Although leftist historians...at least recognize the ways in which capitalism has made gay identity and thus the demand for same-sex marriage possible, they still go out of their way to note that this does not mean that capitalism is actually good.

Conservatives, however, seem unaware of the connection. They continue to pay lip service to the great things capitalism provides and often understand correctly the ways in which its economic effects cannot be controlled, yet they complain about the cultural dynamism that is the direct result of the dynamism of the market.

That sums it up nicely.

More. David Boaz, as it happens, has a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week about capitalism and its political discontents, taking aim at presidential candidates (and, I'd add, their media cheerleaders) who hypocritically disparage the "money culture" of traders, entrepreneurs and manufacturers. States Boaz, in rebuttal: "You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others."

A report in LA Weekly, California GOP: The Queer Enablers of Gay Marriage, highlights why the "all LGBT eggs (and votes, and money) in the Democratic Party basket" (or else you must be a "self-loathing" rich white gay jerk) is and always was partisanship gone wild:

[GOP Gov. Pete Wilson] appointed Judge Ronald M. George to the California State Supreme Court. Nearly 17 years later, the moderate Republican jurist would become a national gay hero. Last Thursday, it was George's carefully written majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in California. By nightfall...gay activists stood on a stage and publicly lauded the judge as "courageous." Speaker after speaker also praised another Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for promising to "fight" against a November ballot measure that could still outlaw gay marriage in the Golden State. ...

When Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in last week's historic case and a gay-rights advocate for more than 40 years, realized many months ago that the California State Supreme Court was jammed with Republicans, she was anything but fearful. "I was thrilled," she says. "I thought we'd stand more of a chance. I think a Democratic court might have shied away because of the issue of the (presidential) election."

As I never tire of pointing out, our national LGBT groups are largely staffed by activists with close ties to the Democratic Party, and much of their top leadership ranks flow back and forth from positions within the party itself (with an eye kept on possible low to mid-level positions in the next Democratic administration). That would be fine if these groups presented themselves as partisans targeting LBGT money and votes on their party's behalf, but they don't.

Yep, It's Groundbreaking

Semi-related, Laura Bush and daughter Jenna last week taped a segment on The Ellen DeGeneres Show (expected to air this coming Wednesday), discussing their new book. Ellen is a California resident, and following the California Supreme Court's marriage ruling she announced her engagement to longtime girlfriend Portia de Rossi.

Ponder that for a moment: A conservative Republican First Lady going on a chat show with a famous lesbian who's just announced she's going to get married?

And now, this just in: The AP reports that "President Bush's newly married daughter, Jenna Hager, seemed to offer her family's Texas ranch to Ellen DeGeneres as a wedding location."

I think this is just another sign that the religious right is losing on all fronts, and that their initiatives to ban marriage are just last stands in their retreat -last stands that may stay in state constitutions for a generation, alas, but still part of a general losing effort.