IGF CultureWatch

The imperative of America's press is not truth, it is conflict - or, more accurately, drama. Truth and facts are tools the press uses to enhance dramatic conflict, but it is the fight, not the resolution, that animates the press.

Gay equality provides a rich vein of material, and we are used to our opponents exploiting fears and anecdotes to support laws that put the government into the active position of discriminating, from Sam Nunn's infamous "field hearing" in 1993 where he led legislators into submarines to see how gay soldiers would be sleeping and showering this close to our heterosexual fighting men, to Martin Ssempa's ongoing campaign in Uganda to provoke citizens into a full understanding that homosexuality means eating one another's poo-poo.

But it's not just our opponents who want to work people up into a sweat. The New York Times does a fine job this morning of stirring the pot. According to their reporting, if DADT repeal passes (a prospect still months away in the Senate, apparently), there will be all kinds of "thorny issues" that will arise, from allowing same-sex couples to live in base housing together to hospital visitation.

But this being the New York Times, these concerns are coming from homosexual soldiers. See? You don't have to hate gays to exploit us; you just have to be deeply enough committed to conflict.

To be fair, the NY Times did get Elaine Donnelly to weigh in with a typically overwrought comment, in order to maintain its liberal cred. Donnelly, true to form, brought up the perils of living right next to the homosexual menace: "Same-sex couples in family housing will become a reason for families to decline re-enlistment or a change in station," she fretted. If you thought it was bad having to live next to black neighbors in the 60s, imagine what it would be like if the black neighbors were homosexual.

It is not until the 17th paragraph of the 25 paragraph story that the NY Times states the obvious, noncontroversial truth "that tens of thousands of gay people already serve in the military, many open to their closest peers, without problems."

It's possible to imagine, in some alternate universe, an accurate, truthful and informative report where that is the point. But who in our own galaxy wants to read about something "without problems"? No one - or, at least no one who isn't primarily interested in conflict and drama.

After a lifetime of loving the theater and literature, I have come to take pleasure in the non-dramatic. In our age, this is nearly a confession of error, or gross and alarming nonconformity. But sometimes I just want the facts without the adjectives and adverbs, the breathless reporters and all the agita.

Which brings me to Rush Limbaugh, and a savvy defense of him on gay rights. As Timothy Kincaid observes at Box Turtle Bulletin, while we're used to assuming Rush is a Neanderthal reactionary on gay rights, that may not be correct. Bellicosity is Limbaugh's style, and I wouldn't argue he's the calm, rational journalist of my dreams. But on gay rights, he's hardly been leading the charge to maintain inequality. He's got some rough comments about political excesses from our side, and lord knows I couldn't disagree with him on that. But when it comes to the actual policies of DADT and equal or equal-ish rights for same-sex couples, Rush isn't on the front lines.

Tim offers some evidence -- from the right -- that Rush may be squishy on civil unions, and maybe even on sexual orientation being a choice. Whatever is in Rush's head or heart, though, it's clear that the prospect of gay equality is something he hasn't exploited with the bombast at his disposal.

Which may mean he's actually a bit more responsible and conscientious than the writers and editors of today's story in the NY Times. Certainly the NY Times has taken a strong editorial stand in favor of equality. But when their news side feels comfortable and duty-bound to use us in order to make sure people have something to argue about, it's worth pointing out that it looks, for all the world, as if they're trying to out-Limbaugh Limbaugh.

The Republican and religious roots of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) have never been in doubt. But is NOM becoming more frankly partisan and more narrowly religious? Consider three items:

***In California, NOM is running ads opposing Tom Campbell in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. The ad mentions marriage only after attacking him for supporting higher taxes. On its website and in emails, it is dubbing Campbell a RINO (Republican In Name Only), an epithet used in intra-party squabbles.

NOM is now against higher gasoline taxes as well as gay marriage. I'm waiting for the "Drill Here, Drill Now" ads.

***In Minnesota, NOM is running ads criticizing the state DFL (Democratic) party repeatedly by name for opposing a voter referendum on marriage. It also attacks Independent candidates.

The surprise is not that NOM would oppose pro-SSM candidates, but that it would do so in a way indistinguishable from a GOP ad.

***In a recent fundraising email, NOM Executive Director Brian Brown claims that same-sex marriage evinces a "profound untruth about the human person." The term "human person," a redundancy to the uninitiate, is most distinctive to Catholic theology and especially prominent in the writings of conservative Catholic natural-law theorists.

Opposite-sex marriage, Bown continues, is "written on the human heart." It's an elegant and evocative phrase. Google it and the first thing that pops up? An important and, especially for Catholics, influential address by Pope John Paul II entitled, "God's Law is Written on the Human Heart."

Brown concludes his email in language that combines the partisan and religious strands in NOM's DNA: "Here's NOM's promise: We transform your values into action, action into victory--victory for God's truth about marriage. What God has joined, no RINO Republican has any right to put asunder!"

It's perfectly legitimate for NOM to make itself a home for religious-conservative Republicans and a particular strand of natural-law Catholicism. This reflects the group's governing philosophy. Indeed, as compared to downplaying these facts for strategic reasons, it's refreshing to see NOM come out of its partisan and sectarian closet.

Yesterday's House floor debate over repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was revealing - you might even call it telling. I could not count the republicans who alleged that the democrats and the administration were not listening to the troops, were ignoring what the troops had to say, were, in fact, disrespecting the troops who risk their lives for us every blessed day.

I try to be expansive in discounting political rhetoric before I'll call it a lie, and there's enough selective truth here to judge these statements as misleading rather than fully false. But a more complete and accurate view is that the democrats and the administration, after having listened to the troops and to the country at large, and after having reviewed the policies of every other nation that has dealt with this issue, nearly all of which have allowed lesbians and gay men to serve openly, have decided that those who support repeal of DADT have the better argument than those who support retaining it. That may feel oppressive and dismissive to those whose position has not prevailed, but it is hardly fair to say their point of view has not been heard. We've all been heard.

In fact, the listening won't stop under this bill. It requires yet another study, though this one will be unique in that it will solicit the views, not only of heterosexual troops who can speak openly about how they feel, but also provides a mechanism where homosexual troops who are serving in silence can express their own feelings. Imagine that: asking lesbians and gay men who are forced to be in the closet how they feel about a policy that forces them to be in the closet. On this subject, while the views of heterosexuals are important, it would seem that the views of gay soldiers ought to be given some weight. The fact that they can't reveal their opinions under the current policy - because it would get them kicked out - seems to me proof enough that the policy is perversely and calculatedly designed to be self-perpetuating.

I'm pretty sure this kind of polling of the troops about their policy preferences is original, but our political branches do have the authority to demand such things if they think that's wise. They didn't need to pass DADT in the first place, but they had the ability to do so, and did. If they think they might have made a mistake, and that polling the troops is worth doing to confirm the suspicion, then polling it is.

But I'm with Nathaniel Frank in suspecting that the new study will show what the decade of existing ones shows - that our military, like the militaries of so many other nations, won't suffer as an institution by allowing lesbians and gay men to be truthful, and that it might even benefit a bit by ridding itself of a policy that, unique among military policies, demands people lie.

We'll see, today, if John McCain can keep the lie alive.

After a long spell with no staff whatsoever, the national Log Cabin Republicans' board of directors has named R. Clarke Cooper as the group's new leader. Here's the announcement. And some background on Cooper's military service (well, he seems like a straight shooter!).

As I've often argued, to the dismay of the one-party-is-all-we-need crowd, we will never obtain full legal and social equality if the conservative party in the U.S. remains in adamant opposition. That's why making gay integration into American society a conservative goal is so important. Witness the strides toward legal equality in Britain, where several top Torie party leaders are openly gay.

In the U.S., as of now the left-leaning Democratic party has an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and the presidency, and after two years we are not going to see even partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay unions sanctioned by individual states (no joint tax returns, no Social Security inheritance, no tax break on employer-provided spousal health care, etc. etc.). The reason: the Democrats have more or less gotten a free ride, so why spend political capital?

Let's hope with new leadership, LCR (along with newer rival GOProud), can help to move the ball forward.

I can't say I disagree with some of the criticisms of the DADT compromise reached yesterday between the White House and Congress. As Americablog notes, there are loopholes that might delay or even prevent the repeal from going into effect.

But here's the thing: It was us, has always been us, who have been making the far more dominant argument that a repeal bill has to be passed this year -- now -- or it will fall between the cracks of politics in the Congress That May Come.

Politics is hard, and few domestic issues have more complicated political dynamics than those related to sexual orientation. Yes, gay issues are nothing compared to health care reform, but on that issue, the country was pretty evenly divided (depending on how you choose to slice and dice the numbers); on DADT repeal, we've got 70-plus percent of the country in our camp, and still have to drag a couple of legislators across the finish line to get a majority, even in the House.

The politics of the market are nothing compared to the residue of misunderstanding that still fouls some corners of the public debate over lesbians and gay men. That is the cold, hard reality, and I, for one, can't wish it away.

In that context, anything that removes a vile and offensive law from our books, and gives this administration the chance to act in good faith strikes me as not only acceptable but praiseworthy. Yes, implementation of the law was odious and insulting to the thousands of good men and women who suffered through it, but its very existence is an even worse insult to every lesbian and gay man in the nation, and every heterosexual as well. Removing it from our law is worth some risk.

The compromise will move the action away from Congress, where it never should have been in the first place, and put it squarely in the administration, who will no longer have Congress to hide behind. That strikes me as defensible at the least, and much more consistent with the way the rules for the military should be constructed than DADT's politicized discrimination.

I say let's remove this stain from our statutes now, while we have the chance.

I'll go further than David in endorsing the "compromise" on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It would be a huge and necessary step toward the permanent end of DADT. It's a conditional repeal, restoring the status quo ante 1993 under which presidents had sole authority to set military personnel policy toward gays and lesbians. But it would wipe out the statutory basis for the exclusion of gays. President Obama would surely exercise his authority to end the ban. And while a future president could in theory reinstate it, that's extremely unlikely in fact.

The problem is that we may not get this conditional repeal. Congress still has to vote for it. The Obama administration was dragged kicking and screaming into acquiescence. The letter from budget director Peter Orszag on behalf of the administration is about as non-committal and unenthusiastic as a message of "support" could be. The president and the White House are exercising no leadership, which is what may be needed to get this through even this heavily Democratic Congress this year. And if it doesn't get through this year, it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Adding to the posts below by Dale and David, it doesn't appear to me that Obama deserves any credit for being forced to move ahead on repealing "don't ask, don't tell." The movers here are those Democrats in Congress who are, finally, standing up to the president.

As the AP reports, under the proposal Congress would overturn the Clinton-era law barring gays from serving openly in the military, but would "allow the Pentagon time-perhaps even years-to implement new policies" following completion of a comprehensive study. At that time, implementation would require approval of the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And tellingly, according to the AP:

"The White House had hoped lawmakers would delay action until Pentagon officials had completed their study so fellow Democrats would not face criticism that they moved too quickly or too far ahead of public opinion in this election year. Instead, administration officials recognized it could not stop Congress in its effort to repeal the 1993 ban and joined the negotiations."

In other words, Obama's hope was to sacrifice his commitment to gay equality in the military for electoral expediency. But at least some congressional Democrats, who may or may not have the votes to put this across, aren't letting him get away with it. Good for them.

More:

uh-oh.

"A lukewarm endorsement from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and opposition among some lawmakers cast doubt Tuesday on whether Congress this week would lift a 17-year-old ban on gays serving openly in the military....

"I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it," Sen. Jim Webb, a conservative Democrat from Virginia, said of the military study."

By the way, the Human Rights Campaign's website is still bragging about the group's support for Webb.

ADDED: With House passage, all eyes will be on the Senate, which isn't expected to vote until later this summer. At issue: will the Senate Republicanbs mount a filibuster?

Also, it should be noted the despite the characterization in the excerpt above, Sen. Jim Webb is no "conservative Democrat." He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Obama mega-billion pork-barrel "stimulus" and of so-called health care reform. He's a big spending, government expanding Democrat who thinks he can placate Virginia conservatives by opposing equality for gays. Nice. Let's all send our checks to HRC to keep him in office.

Benefits of bipartisanship. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine backs repeal, giving conservative Democrats some wiggle room.

American libertarians, including Barry Goldwater back in the day, have opposed racial discrimination but been wary of using the federal government to make discrimination by private employers against "protected classes" illegal, as Reason' hit & run blog notes.

Which brings us to the current Rand Paul brouhaha. This erupted after the Kentucky GOP Senate primary winner, a favorite of Tea Party patriots, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (when asked) that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring discrimination in hiring by private employers. Predictably, Paul was branded a "racist" and has come under enormous political fire by the mainstream media.

But libertarians' opposition to the Civil Rights Act no more makes them "racists" than their opposition to outlawing anti-gay hiring discrimination in the private sector makes them homophobes (as Nigel Ashford addressed here back in 1999).

Whether you agree or not, it's a principled view based on assumptions about, and in defense of, individual liberty. But as a society we've become unable to discuss and debate serious positions regarding political philosophy, and instead have only demagoguery and partisan grandstanding.

What I find interesting is the fact that the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity into classes protected from employment discrimination, is going nowhere fast (as Dale Carpenter makes clear), despite two years of a liberal Democratic president with sweeping majorities in both houses of Congress.

But in this case, it's not because Democrats are closet libertarians; they just don't see the advantage in using political capital on our behalf. And their inaction seems perfectly fine with the liberal grandees of the mainstream media, given their silence on the issue. For them, at least, some forms of private-sector discrimination are more tolerable than others. And that is not a principled position; it's just a political calculation.

We get some substantive and excellent comments at IGF, but Tom's essay in response to Steve's post on Rand Paul stands out. Tom's essential point is this: It is all well and good for a libertarian (or anyone else) to stand on principle. But once others have compromised your principle, what do you do?

Specifically in the case of same-sex marriage, Paul The Younger has said that he doesn't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. I'm not sure, myself, and can see the arguments on both sides. But he's acting on this principle only to protect same-sex couples from this governmental intrusion into liberty, while resting comfortably in the reality that opposite-sex couples are suffering daily with no end in sight. He has a similar position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he doesn't think was good libertarian policy to begin with; but apparently he can live with it now. However, I'm sure he'd continue to protect the privilege of lesbians and gay men to be free of this overbearing encroachment on their rights.

The greatness of libertarianism, in my view, is that it has the proper respect for the constitution, which after all is a limitation on government. One of its principal limitations is that, when the government acts, it must do so equally with respect to all groups, and may not pick and choose among them without very good reason. Perhaps the constitution really does prohibit the government from entering into the marriage business. Or perhaps that's just a better understanding of government's proper role, irrespective of the constitution. But no court has ever ruled that this is an illegitimate function of our government, and I'm not expecting one to any time soon.

As long as that is true, then, a libertarian -- if he or she is truly principled -- must take one of two positions: either take a stand to challenge the entire misbegotten exercise of unauthorized and/or immoral authority for everyone, or else make sure that this power, as it is being exercised, is exercised without illegitimate discrimination among groups.

That constitutional libertarianism is how we should measure Rand Paul's brand. So far, his principles seem a bit more politically convenient than constitutionally defensible. Or principled.

This account in D.C.'s City Paper is about a burning issue facing our community: making sure that we all use LGBT (or LGBTQ, or LGBTQIT, or...) and not the no longer correct GLBT. For those not consumed with politically correction nomenclature, the only truly progressive stance is to put lesbians before gays, bisexuals and the transgendered in the ubiquitous if ungainly (and mystifying to the uninitiated) acronym. But see, we're striking a blow against male privilege, and after all, isn't that what matters?

And if you ever wondered why after two years of Democratic majorities we will not be seeing an end to "don't ask, don't tell" or movement on the anti-discrimination law that activists say is their top priority, this sort of nonsense may give you a clue.