IGF CultureWatch

On Sunday night, my partner and I caught TCM's "Silent Sunday" showing of the 1928 film "West Point," starring the all-but-forgotten William Haines. But it's Haines' own story that should be turned into a movie. As Wikipedia recounts, by 1925 he was MGM's most important male star. But...

Haines lived openly as a homosexual. Starting in 1926, Haines lived with Jimmy Shields, whom he had met when Shields was his stand-in during the production of a film. Studio publicists were able to keep Haines' sexual orientation from the press....

In 1933...Louis B. Mayer, the studio head at MGM, delivered an ultimatum to Haines: choose between a sham marriage or … [end] his relationship with Shields. Haines chose Shields and they were ultimately together for 50 years. Mayer subsequently fired Haines and terminated his contract.

And there's much more:

Haines and Shields began a successful career as interior designers and antique dealers....Their lives were disrupted in 1936 when members of the Ku Klux Klan dragged the two men from their home and beat them, because a neighbor had accused the two of propositioning his son. Crawford, along with other stars such as Claudette Colbert, George Burns, Gracie Allen, Kay Francis and Charles Boyer urged the men to report this to the police. Marion Davies asked her lover William Randolph Hearst to use his influence to ensure the neighbors were prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but ultimately Haines and Shields chose not to report the incident.

The couple finally settled into the Hollywood community in Malibu, and their business prospered until their retirement in the early 1970s, except for a brief interruption when Haines served in World War II.

During his film career, Haines may have made it a point to interject gay asides into his material. In "West Point," for no reason in particular he refers to his (platonic) pal as his "boy-friend." One of his films bore the title "Brothers Under the Skin" (in which a shipping clerk and the vice president of the same company "have similar marital problems").

Oh, and as the Internet Movie Database notes, "He was an active supporter of the Republican Party and a close friend of Ronald Reagan."

This New York Times news story asserts that there is no difference between the positions on matters gay among Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and McCain. (In fact, Huckabee and Romney court the religious right and support a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage; Giuliani and McCain don't.) Yet...

[The Democratic candidates] all support same-sex civil unions and say they would fight to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And each of them says he or she would champion a federal anti-discrimination law that would protect lesbians and gay men.... All of the [GOP] candidates hold opposite positions from the Democrats on those matters, and although gay rights have not dominated the Republican contest so far, if past elections are any guide, they will become an issue after the primaries, [unnamed liberal] political strategists say.

To further make his case, reporter Andrew Jacobs misleading reports flatly that Giuliani opposes civil unions (Giuliani has stated "I support civil unions" but briefly and unfortunately was critical, specifically, of New Hampshire's version). In October, liberal Times columnist Frank Rich wrote, "No matter how you slice it, the Giuliani positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control remain indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's."

Meanwhile, in Jacobs' reportage all the Dems are equally wonderful and splendiferous (even if they all oppose same-sex marriage). There is no attempt to hold the Democrats' rhetoric up to comparison with their records (no pro-gay congressional battles have been led by any of the big three: none, zero, nada) or their likelihood to spend political capital on gay issues in the future (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in).

Out of the presidential contenders who were serving in Congress in 2004, the only one who did risk political capital by speaking out forcefully and eloquently against the federal marriage amendment was...John McCain (CNN.com's coverage is here; read it).

Just shoddy journalism, or an effort to help ensure that lesbigay voters keep mindlessly giving their votes and dollars to the one true party? You decide.

David Frum, a prominent neocon who, while not a religious rightist, has supported socially conservative positions such as banning same-sex marriage, seems to be moderating. He opines in the New York Times:

Social traditionalists too need to adapt to new realities. Opposition to same-sex marriage is dwindling. The pro-life cause, though gaining strength, remains a minority point of view. If social conservatives can avoid seeming judgmental or punitive, their core message will become more relevant than ever to an America where marriage is equaling college as a tollgate to the middle class.

By "core message," I believe Frum means that marriage is fundamental but under threat. If that concern can be separated from paranoia over gays wanting to get hitched, social conservatism could play a more constructive role (encouraging marriage, for example) and we'd all be better off.

Speaking of which, IGF's own Dale Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch will join David Frum and other conservatives at an upcoming symposium titled Is Gay Marriage Conservative? The Feb. 15 event, sponsored by the Southern Texas Law Review, seeks "to foster civil debate among conservatives and within conservative thought about gay marriage" and will focus on "the underlying policy question of whether gay marriage is a good idea from a conservative perspective."

It's the kind of open exchange of ideas between independent gay intellectuals and prominent conservatives that IGF loves to see, and that the "progressive" LGBT echo chamber organizations have long shunned.

I agree that this approach would be a far more effective long-term strategy:

Prior to the New Hampshire primary, the Boston-based gay newspaper Bay Windows-which circulates across New England-was approached by representatives of several Democratic candidates seeking an endorsement, editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar said.

Instead, Ryan-Vollmar wrote a biting column asserting that none of the front-runners-Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards-had shown enough courage on gay issues to deserve the customarily generous financial support of gay donors.

"They've merely settled on what the Democrats have staked out as a safe, consensus position, just far enough ahead of where the party was in 2004 to give a sense of progress but not so far as to threaten Middle America," Ryan-Vollmar wrote. "That's not leadership, it's poll-tested and party-approved pandering, pure and simple."

Rather than donating to any presidential candidate, gays and lesbians should give money to state and local candidates who support marriage rights, she wrote.

But it won't happen because too many LGBT inside-the-beltway lobbyists see themselves as Democrats targeting the lesbigay community on behalf of their party, with the hope of one day achieving their personal goal of a nice apparatchik position in a Democratic administration.

Jonathan Kay writes on the National Post website:

Brokeback Mountain, Heath Ledger's masterpiece, has been Youtubed, South Parked, Family Guyed and Saturday Night Lived so many times, that it is sometimes difficult to recall what an astonishingly good film it was. Had Brokeback been the only film Ledger had ever made, we would still properly be mourning the loss of one of the world's great actors.

And Alex Altman reflects at Time magazine online:

Though the late actor had taken on other roles since, it was his Oscar-nominated performance as Ennis Del Mar, a sheep rancher who discovers his homosexuality in Brokeback Mountain, that mourners referred to again and again. His death was particularly poignant to gay New Yorkers. "He is a gay icon," says John Lopez, 22, who works in a gourmet food store that Ledger frequented. "To support us, he broke a lot of taboos." From overseas, the film's director Ang Lee said in a statement, "He brought to the role of Ennis more than any of us could have imagined - a thirst for life, for love, and for truth, and a vulnerability that made everyone who knew him love him. His death is heartbreaking."

Of course, couldn't you just predict this.

Addedndum. A look back at Hollywood hypocrisy and more from our Brokeback archive.

I'm not quite sure why I think the ongoing travails between the increasingly reactionary Anglican Communion vs. the (predominantly) inclusive-leaning U.S. Episcopal Church are of so much importance. But, as Theo Hobson blogs, the struggle between inclusiveness and naked bigotry seems to encapsulate the ongoing tension between corrupt religious institutions and the essential Gospel message. He puts it nicely:

An institution that discriminates against homosexuals is without moral credibility-and moral credibility is rather important in religion. Furthermore, it contravenes the spirit of Jesus's teaching. His commandment "Judge not" could almost have been invented for the problem of homosexuality, which most straight people find challenging on some level, but must learn not to condemn. Tolerance seems the only moral response, and a rule against gay priests obviously falls short of tolerance. It institutionalises prejudice....

In my opinion, the gay crisis shakes the foundations of ecclesiology. Organised religion has always been authoritarian, in calling certain moral rules God's will, in saying that moral and doctrinal orthodoxy must be upheld. As I see it, Christianity rejects this; it dispenses with the moral "law". It claims, scandalously, that God wills a new freedom-from "holy morality", from the bossy legalism inherent in religious institutionalism.

I agree, which is why I'm appalled by those who would turn their backs on the Gospel of Love for the sake maintaining the "unity" of the Anglican Communion, at any cost.

Kudos to the Washington Blade for editorializing on why gay fealty to one political party is not now, and never was, good strategy.

In a lawsuit, former Democratic National Committee gay outreach director Donald Hitchcock charges he was fired as director of the DNC's Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council in May 2006 after his domestic partner, Paul Yandura, wrote that "All progressives need to be asking how much has the DNC budgeted to counter the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the states. We also need to know why the DNC and our Democratic leaders continue to allow the Republicans to use our families and friends as pawns to win elections." DNC memos brought to light as a result of the suit reveal the extent to which the DNC expects gays to shut up and keep sending dollars.

Comments Blade Editor Kevin Naff:

it serves as a reminder of what happens when one party knows it can count on the support of a constituency group, no matter what. We have seen this problem manifest before. When Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat who once publicly supported gay marriage, changed his position and invoked the Catholic sacraments following that state's high court ruling upholding a gay ban, our national advocacy groups were silent. It's a safe bet that if O'Malley were a Republican, the indignant press releases would have been flying and rallies would have been scheduled for Annapolis.

When Democrats like John Kerry and 2004 running mate John Edwards announce support for anti-gay state marriage amendments and gays line up dutifully behind them anyway, we teach the party that there are no repercussions for betraying us.

This doesn't mean gay voters should pull the lever for any of the Republicans now in the running. Rather, gay voters, donors and campaign staffers need to learn the art of the barter system: you give something, you get something. No one knows that concept better than the evangelical Christians.

"Free gay votes and dollars for Dems; nothing required" has for too long been the operating principle of major national (and some state) LGBT organizations.

The Cato Institute has posted The Future of Marriage by Stephanie Coontz, author of the recently published book "Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage." She writes:

For most of history, marriage was more about getting the right in-laws than picking the right partner to love and live with.... It was just 250 years ago, when the Enlightenment challenged the right of the older generation and the state to dictate to the young, that free choice based on love and compatibility emerged as the social ideal for mate selection. ....

Massive social changes combine to ensure that a substantial percentage of people will continue to explore alternatives to marriage. ... Stir in the reproductive revolution, which has made it possible for couples who would once have been condemned to childlessness to have the kids they want, but impossible to prevent single women or gay and lesbian couples from having children. Top it off with changes in gender roles that have increased the payoffs of marriage for educated, financially secure women but increased its risks for low-income women whose potential partners are less likely to hold egalitarian values, earn good wages, or even count on a regular job. Taken together, this is a recipe for a world where the social weight of marriage has been fundamentally and irreversibly reduced. ...

[But] marriage is not on the verge of extinction. Most cohabiting couples eventually do get married, either to each other or to someone else. New groups, such as gays and lesbians, are now demanding access to marriage-a demand that many pro-marriage advocates oddly interpret as an attack on the institution. And a well-functioning marriage is still an especially useful and effective method of organizing interpersonal commitments and improving people's well-being. But in today's climate of gender equality and personal choice, we must realize that successful marriages require different traits, skills, and behaviors than in the past.

There's also a responding essay by social conservative Kay S. Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, who laments the social costs of "de-linking marriage and childbearing" such as the rise in single mothers dependent on the government for support. She writes:

The United States has spent billions trying to prop up fatherless families through welfare payments, nutrition programs, early childhood education, Title 1, child support, and a teeming, maddening family court system. We don't have much to show for it.

It's a good reminder that social conservatives have some reasons to be concerned with the state of marriage, and that those who support expanding the right to marry to include same-sex couples would do well to recognize these fears, and then explain why marriage equality would strengthen, not weaken, marriage as a social bedrock.

On Jan. 13, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ONE (the first national "homosexual magazine") was not pornographic and could be sent through the mail. "This ruling made nationally distributed LGBT print media possible," comments Box Turtle Bulletin, which observes:

when ONE caught the eye of the FBI, they immediately launched an investigation to try to shut it down. They went so far as to write to the employers of ONE's editors and writers (they all depended on their day jobs for income), saying that their employees were "deviants" and "security risks."

It's quite astounding, in fact, how far we've come in less than my own lifetime, with full escape from state-sponsored discrimination (including overcoming the denial of the right to marry and to serve in the military) within reach.

Alas, hard-won freedoms are not always wisely used, as such is the nature of freedom. Case in point, today's mostly slick and vapid national lesbigay publications, where nongay celebrity interviews compete with trendy takes on global warming , and knee-jerk support for "progressive" bigger government as the path to salvation is almost always the order of the day.

More. Dan Blatt (aka GayPatriotWest) shares his thoughts on how The Advocate puts Bush-bashing above gay advocacy.

Sorry, very busy and haven't blogged for several days. Which is a lame way to justify that I don't have much to say about New Hampshire. Okay, here are a few thoughts: An upsurge for Giuliani (who may yet come back), whatever his others failings, would have sent a message that the GOP nationally was prepared to embrace socially tolerant views. Huckabee and Romney at the forefront would send the opposite message, that hardline social conservatism is not going to give way in the Grand Old Party. John McCain comes out better than midway between the two-he opposed the federal anti-gay marriage amendment but supported a state amendment in Arizona (which, as it turned out, was the first in the nation to be defeated at the polls). In the past, he has called the leaders of the religious right on their intolerance, but this time round seems to have concluded that such honesty was a strategic mistake. Still, he's not really one of them, and they know it.

The other blog-worthy political story is the Ron Paul newsletter revelations by James Kirchick. I believe Paul's statement that he did not write the racist, anti-gay screeds that went out in newsletters bearing his name. And he still gets credit for answering "sure" when ABC's John Stossel asked if gays should be allowed to marry (each other, that is). But Paul did license his name to be used on these newsletters (presumably for a profit) and it just won't do to say that he was too busy to keep an eye on what was happening. These rants are old style, hard-right bigotry and not in the least "libertarian." [David Boaz shares his thoughts on the foul newsletters, here. And tangentially, Ilya Somin defends real-deal libertarianism after Michael Kinsley misses the point, here.]

Shifting gears, I'm beginning to like that disgraced Idaho Sen. Larry Craig keeps fighting his restroom sting arrest, arguing in a new court filing that the underlying act wasn't criminal because it didn't involve "multiple victims."

The brief also argues that [the arresting officer who entrapped Craig] himself could not have been offended by the alleged conduct because "he invited it." The alleged conduct, Craig's lawyers added, doesn't rise to the level of being "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy."

Quite right. The state achieves no justifiable end in conducting this type of entrapment, which gives police an easy means to fulfill their arrest quotas by creating misery for the confused and closeted.