IGF CultureWatch

Two of the country's largest Episcopal congregations-both in Fairfax County, Virginia-will vote next week on whether to leave the U.S. church over the ordination of an openly gay bishop (and other perceived heresies) and to affiliate instead with a vehemently anti-gay Nigerian archbishop.

Social conservatives hope a split will establish a legal structure that would make it easier for more like-minded congregations to depart the national denomination.

From a short-term perspective, the Episcopal Church can ill afford such defections after years of declining membership. But in the long run, a commitment to the gospel message that embraces the worth of all, and a rejection of selective literalism motivated by anti-gay animus, would offer a far better prospect for the renewal of a vibrant, spiritual community.

More. Conservative Judaism's governing body votes to permit same-sex commitment ceremonies and ordination of gays, with some stipulations.

Arizona became the first state to reject a ban on same-sex marriage because voters felt government should stay away from it, not because people supported gay marriage, according to a poll released last week.

A clear majority, 60 percent, of those who voted against the measure said they felt it violated individual rights. While 30 percent said they voted against the measure because it was not fair to deny benefits to unmarried couple, only 8 percent said they supported same-sex marriage.

As reported by the AP:

"This issue had nothing to do with same-sex marriage," said Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state lawmaker and leader of a campaign against the proposal. "What it did was take away benefits and legal protections that unmarried families in Arizona had. And Arizonans believe that's wrong: that the government shouldn't take things away from people." ...

"What we did in Arizona, which wasn't done successfully in any other state, we showed the real lives that would be hurt if this passed," Sinema said.

Several backward states prohibit gay couples from adopting children. In one of these, Oklahoma, the legislature passed a bill prohibiting the state from acknowledging adoptions by same-sex couples from other jurisdictions-blocking parental rights post-adoption, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Here's what happened: A gay couple in Washington state adopted a child born to a mother who resides in Oklahoma, with the intention of allowing the birth mother to remain a part of the child's life. But since Oklahoma refuses to recognize the couple's legal paternity, they dare not travel to the Sooner State to visit the child's mother or allow their daughter to bond with her maternal grandfather and other birth relatives. Should the child get hurt and need hospitalization, for example, they would have no rights to make care decisions (or even to ride in the ambulance!)

Even if one misguidedly thought that barring gay couples from adopting somehow "protects" children, how does refusing to recognize parental rights post-adoption do anything but put children at risk?

Some good adoption news. A reasonable decision, from Virginia, of all places. Overlawyered.com has more.

[Note to readers: I will be out of town, and without Internet access, for most of the coming week. I encourage you to visit some of the blogs I find most valuable.]

Much of the Republicans' recent defeat, strategists tell Bloomberg News:

can be attributed to the party's previously fail-proof tactic of firing up its core supporters by appeals on social issues such as gay marriage. This year, that approach backfired, particularly among young voters, who are more likely than others to call themselves independents, and who overwhelmingly backed Democrats.

One-third of the electorate now say they are independents, and "exit polls suggest this group is still up for grabs, with nearly a third of young voters saying they made up their minds about how to vote in the final days of the campaign." Significantly, these young independents "tend to be either pro-gay marriage or more indifferent to the issue compared with older voters."

But "Democrats will face demands from their own base-and if that leads to tax increases, overzealous hearings on Bush policies or runaway spending, independents will be put off Democrats, too."

Former Enron exec Michael Kopper was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to return $8 million to the government. But his domestic partner, William Dodson, has been allowed to keep $9 million in funds that Kopper helped him obtain through Enron-related scams.

According to the Washington Blade:

the fact that U.S. and Texas laws do not recognize same-sex relationships most likely prompted authorities against going after Dodson's financial gains in the Enron affair, financial observers have said. Federal prosecutors forced the married spouses of several Enron figures to forfeit money they obtained in schemes operated jointly with Enron executives.

In other words, if Kopper and Dodson were married, the Enron funds that now belong to Dodson would be considered jointly owned by the two men under the marriage laws of most states. As Alphonso David, a staff attorney for Lambda Legal, puts it:

"It's ironic that some of the same people who are opposed to legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples are upset that this couple gets to keep about $9 million in stolen funds.... This highlights the point that people don't always think about the obligations as well as the rights that go with marriage."

Israeli citizens can now enter into same-sex marriages in foreign jurisdictions that allow them (such as Canada, Massachusetts and some European countries) and have them recognized by the Israeli state. As Andrew Sullivan points out: "The contrast with the murderous homophobia in the Arab-Muslim Middle East could not be starker."

But don't tell that to San Francisco-based QUIT! (Queers Undermining Israeli Terror).

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney charges it's "disingenuous" of Sen. John McCain to think (1) gay marriage is a bad idea and (2) the issue should be left to the states (not a federal constitutional amendment). This, says Romney, is "having it both ways." Morality trumps federalism. I disagree, but it's a coherent position.

But wait. Mitt Romney opposes abortion. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," he wrote in 2005. So does he call for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion? Umm...actually, abortion should be left to the states. From the same article:

The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.

So there's room for moral variance on whether to slaughter unborn children, but not on whether to marry gay couples.

Romney isn't the only social conservative whose inconsistency on gay marriage and abortion is glaring, but he isn't just anyone. He's a leading contender for president and, apparently, the leading bidder for the "values vote."

So here's the question John McCain needs to put to Mitt Romney: "Mitt, if I'm wrong on gay marriage, how can you be right on abortion?" When Romney ducks, here's the follow-up: "Would you like to see the Constitution amended to ban abortion throughout the country, and will you fight for that if elected president? Yes or no." We're waiting, Governor.

And so it begins, with Romney charging that McCain is being "disingenuous" by claiming to oppose gay marriage. Meanwhile, McCain may be trying to put some distance between himself and Rudy.

More Politics. As alerted to in the comments: Nancy Pelosi has announced that the Democrats intend to keep Don't Ask, Don't Tell around for the foreseeable future. Via the Boston Globe:

Pelosi has also tempered hopes of reversing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the service of gays and lesbians in the military... Though Pelosi believes homosexuals should be able to openly serve, she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities - including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.

Memo to gay activists: If you're waiting for the new Congress to pass an ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) that includes, at your insistence, the transgendered, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that might interest you.

Still more bashing of America's largest non-government employer this month, from the anti-gay religious right (here, too) and the anti-business Democratic left (here, too).

It's demagoguery (and hypocrisy) all round, as the rightists don't like businesses that treat gays as valued customers, and the lefties just don't like business.

More on Edwards the hypocrite, from Radley Balko:

Edwards' contempt for Wal-Mart has nothing to do with real concern for the poor (it's more a mix of anti-corporatism and good old fashioned snobbery). If that were the case, he'd at least acknowledge that Wal-Mart has done more for the working poor in America than any government safety net program could ever hope to.

Many with a libertarian bent will never forgive John McCain for his speech-muzzling "McCain-Feingold" law that served mainly to divert campaign financing dollars to even less visible pathways. Granted. But it's hard to argue with his recent call for the wayward GOP to return to limited government principles:

We were elected to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative. We increased the size of government in the false hope that we could bribe the public into keeping us in office....

Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us.

Such sentiments are particularly pertinent this week, as we mourn the loss of Milton Friedman, who shed light into the muck of left-liberal economic stagflation and showed how trusting people to make their own choices, rather than empowering government bureaucrats (and smug Ivy League elitists) to choose for them, leads to growth, prosperity and dynamism. Of course, many of us would also stress that freedom to choose for oneself extends beyond the marketplace and boardroom, and that limited government doesn't mean wielding state power to impose a moral regimen on the populace - lessons that social conservatives failed to grasp. (Friedman, himself, opposed the "war on drugs" and favored decriminalizing prostitution.)

Still, as congressional Democrats salivate at the thought of imposing their beloved price controls, wage schemes and trade barriers, Friedman's loss is most acutely felt.