IGF CultureWatch

The Classical Values blog ponders why sexual liberation for gays and others got tied to the nanny state left. Blogger Eric writes:

I don't think it is rational for Republicans to declare war on sex and to appear to embrace erotophobia, because of their traditional "leave people alone" philosophy, but there's not a damned thing I can do about it except write posts like this. As to the Democrats, they see sex not as a form of freedom to be embraced, but as something to be manipulated to gain power.

He continues:

I think that the anti-sex wing of the GOP is colluding with the Democrats to make other Republicans afraid. Not merely afraid of sex, but afraid to talk about sex unless they condemn it.

Of course, civil equality for gay people is not the same as "sex," but it may be true that "erotophobia" is as much responsible for anti-gay animus as the nebulous "homophobia." In any event, the "right" has become a coalition of libertarian/small government "leave us alone" types, capitalist free marketers, pro-trade globalizers and social reactionaries who don't mind using the state as a cudgel, while the "left" conjoins civil libertarians with anarcho-nihilists, enviro-Luddites, union reactionaries, redistributionists and total-statists. So why expect coherence?

Dale Carpenter on Maryland high court's rejection of a gay marriage claim:

SSM [same-sex marriage] has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003... When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely in the near future... If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.

Which is where advocates should have focused their efforts in the first place.

Larry Craig Watch: The ACLU has filed a brief on behalf of Sen. Larry Craig, arguing (correctly, in my view) that arresting someone for signaling a desire for sex is unconstitutional. Public sex is a crime, but that's too far a leap from merely expressing an interest in sex (which may or may not take place in public). Also correct: The aim of the police in conducting restroom stings "is to make as many arrests as possible-arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people."

Of course, this is not the defense that Larry (not signaling anything) Craig himself is putting forth.

Mitt "Mr. Consistency" Romney has launched a new ad in Iowa whose punchline is, "We must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage."

Hmm. Oppose discrimination? At last check, Romney opposed anti-discrimination, in the form of the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. So Romney is anti-discrimination and anti-anti-discrimination. Got that?

In principle, Romney could coherently argue that discrimination is wrong but the law shouldn't forbid it. But, of course, so far as we know he doesn't oppose anti-discrimination laws covering race, ethnicity, gender, and religion. Only anti-discrimination laws that help gay people are "burdensome." So he's against discrimination and against laws against discrimination, except when he's not.

The real burden that's intolerable to Romney, apparently, is the burden of consistency. Nothing new there.

Syrupy singer Barry Manilow canceled a scheduled appearance on ABC's "The View" after ABC refused his request not to be interviewed by co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck (he dislikes her conservative politics). "Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request, so I bowed out," his statement said, adding "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her... I cannot compromise my beliefs."

Now, just imagine the outcry if a conservative entertainer canceled because the network refused his "simple request" to push aside a liberal interviewer? The cries that he was asking the network to discriminate on the basis of the interviewer's political beliefs would be heard throughout the land.

The U. of Michigan's Daily reports that the school's Office of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Affairs plans to pick a new name in an effort to be more inclusive:

"Part of it is that the letters are more exclusive than inclusive," [Gabe Javier, an LGBT affairs assistant] said. "There are lots of people who are part of the LGBT community that may not identify as a lesbian, bisexual or gay person."

How does one begin to communicate the irrelevance of "LGBT" (often followed by an even more unmanageable string of consonants). Suffice to say that outside of the activist/academic milieu, no one has a clue what it means. Alas, it's likely that the Michigan group may end up turning to an even worse moniker, the offensive and ugly "queer." But here's a novel suggestion; unless a case can be made for a better alternative that's easily understood, not demeaning and has historic resonance, how about "gay"?

In brief: Gay bars are closing across the country, perhaps because "as gays gained greater acceptance in society, older gays became more monogamous, and younger gays gravitated toward nightclubs that cater to a mixed crowd," per the Orlando Sentinel. (Andrew Sullivan takes note with a posting he calls "End of Gay Culture Watch.")

Small signs can sometimes hint at substantive cultural shifts. The fact that hardcore anti-gay activists on the right are concerned that Fox News took at an ad in the program guide of the recent National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association conference in San Diego-honoring NLGJA, no less, for its "Commitment to Fair & Balanced Reporting"-is perhaps one such indication. Consternation that the GOP might be "Drifting 'Gay'-Ward" is another.

And on a lighter note: It's funny, but it's true; it's funny 'cause it's true.... It's "Gayliens!."

It will be interesting to see what happens as Sen. Larry Craig fights to withdraw his guilty plea in the now notorious airport sex sting. Will it (a) shed light on the ongoing petty harassment practiced by local police anxious to make their arrest quotas by targeting gays, (b) further convince an ignorant public that being gay means hooking up in men's rooms, (c) drive fellow conservative Republicans to distraction by continuing to make the party look like a bunch of sleazes? Maybe a bit of all three.

Ok, enough of Craig. Let's turn to something a bit more serious, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) snaking its way through congressional subcommittees. If passed by Congress, which seems probable if it reaches the floor of both House and Senate, it's still likely Bush would veto it-Republicans can't afford to further displease their social conservative base, which is already livid over the Mark Foley and Larry Craig shenanigans, and threatening to sit out the next election altogether given the prospect of a presidential nominee, Rudy Giuliani, guilty of tolerating gays.

Given that the next president, whether Hillary or Rudy (the two front-runners) would likely sign the thing, would it be prudent to wait? Maybe, but the Democrats want to get the GOP on record as still being the anti-gay party, in order to shore up their own liberal base. That's politics, and along with lust (for power, but sometimes for sex), it's what drives this town.

Not what you expected a gay marriage opponent to proclaim? Me, either. In the gay marriage debate, David Blankenhorn's statement that "I believe in the equal dignity of homosexual love" represents something of a breakthrough. I heard him say it to a conservative Washington audience in the spring (they seemed taken aback), and now it's online right here, in this Bloggingheads debate.

Blankenhorn goes on, here, to come out in favor of civil unions that would be just like marriage-including federal recognition-except that they would neither add to nor subtract from the existing parenting rights of same-sex couples. This, in Blankenhorn's view, would do 90 percent of what gay couples want without affecting child-rearing laws throughout the country.

Legal equality it ain't. From my point of view, of course, marriage is a clear first choice. On the other hand, Blankenhorn's civil unions would be vastly better than what we have now in 49 states, particularly if federally recognized, and battles over parenting rights could be fought another day.

Not least, Blankenhorn's embrace of civil unions issues an implicit moral challenge to the many, many SSM opponents who take a "Let them eat cake" toward the welfare of gay couples by being against SSM but not for anything else. He's implicitly saying, "Even from a pro-traditional-family perspective, we can protect the interests of children and still do a whole lot for gay couples-and we should." However one feels about this idea, it deserves a wide and respectful hearing, especially from conservatives.

Let's see if any conservatives rise to the challenge.

On Thursday night, my partner David and I went to a moving event at the Smithsonian Institution in D.C., as the papers and other memorabilia of pioneering gay activist Dr. Frank Kameny were formally welcomed (and some displayed) by the National Museum of American History. Kameny's early political placards can now be viewed in near proximity to Jefferson's desk, Lincoln's stovepipe hat, and Dorothy's ruby slippers. Kameny himself, now in his '80s, spoke of being fired from his government post when it was revealed he was a "deviant," how he coined the phrase "Gay is Good" and organized the first-ever openly gay picketing in front of the White House, how far we've come, and how much farther we have to go still.

The event brought together a range of activists from across the political spectrum. I was happy to have an opportunity to socialize with, in addition to IGF's Jon Rauch and contributing author (and registered Democrat) Rick Rosendall [Rick corrects me, in the comments, that he's not a "Democratic activist," as I originally stated], political comrades including Log Cabiners Rich Tafel and Patrick Sammon. But there were also HRC activists who, over a decade ago, I worked with canvassing for Clinton. Ouch. And on the way toward the door, someone called out, "Stephen, it's been a long time....." It was Mike Rogers, who has been in the news quite a bit of late and who I haven't spoken to in over a decade, but who, as much younger men, was once part of my "set."

You can't go home again, and I make no apologies for being critical, on a near-daily basis, of those who hold to a politics I can only term "reactionary liberalism." I must be true to my principles, as they stay true to theirs. But it's an odd sensation when one's past calls out and reminds you how connected we all are, despite how far apart we have become.

During Thursday night's GOP debate, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) again made the dubious case that because so many children are born out of wedlock, we need to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Excerpt:

We don't need more children born out of wedlock; we need more children born into wedlock between a mom and a dad bonded together for life.... When you take the sacredness out of marriage, you will drive the marriage rates down. And currently in this country, currently we're at 36 percent of our children born out of wedlock....

I guess that's why Brownback and his fellow socio-religious conservatives are sponsoring constitutional amendments to make divorce more difficult...oops, never mind.

It seems the more that conservatives embrace, at best, serial public monogamy, the more they need to blame gays for the fact that marriage just isn't what it used to be. The possibility that integrating gays into the institution might actually help restore widespread expectations around marriage and commitment as adult responsibilities just doesn't occur to them.