IGF CultureWatch

Even in the Czech Republic, gay couples who legalize their relationships under a new registered partnership law that's several steps short of full marriage equality nevertheless refer to their unions as "weddings."

This encapsulates my problem with the argument that we must settle for nothing less than full marriage equality now, court mandated as necessary. Once the hetero majority gets used to civil unions or domestic partnerships that are increasingly seen as marriages, society will more readily accept the step-up to full legal matrimony, without the reactionary backlash that could lead to passage of a federal (and certainly numerous state) constitutional amendments, stopping progress for at least several decades.

More. Washington Blade editor Chris Crain editorializes that conservatives ought to support marriage equality for gays rather than "marriage lite," because the latter is inevitably also made available to heterosexual couples as a weaker alternative to marriage, and thus does serve to weaken the institution.

It's a good point, and I've made it myself before, including here and here. Alas, opponents of marriage equality can't get past their anti-gay animus in order to see that marriage for all should be the conservative stance. That leaves us with civil unions and DPs as less than perfect stepping stones, achievable goals that often have majority support and pave the way for future advances.

As Slate's "Explainer" Daniel Engber notes:

Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen will have to undergo league-mandated "sensitivity training," after calling a Chicago Sun-Times columnist a "fag" last week. Guillen told a reporter on Friday that he wasn't sure if he'd make it to the session, while legendary baseball loudmouth John Rocker described his own sensitivity training as a "farce."

Yes, sounds like it's gonna make the guy real sensitive about gays. But this kind of mandatory session is really about placating those offended (and I count myself among them).

Businesses have a right to force this kind of training on their employees, and doing so allows them to claim they're making good faith efforts to eliminate discrimination should they find themselves being sued. But requiring offenders to endure a bit of multi-culti psychoblather isn't likely to get at the root of anyone's prejudice (though it may provide them with an incentive to keep their bigotries out of public view).

I hadn't heard about the brouhaha that followed when the heavily Mormon town of Kanab, Utah, resolved to promote the "natural family" unit, defined as man and woman, duly married "as ordained of God," with hearts "open to a full quiver of children." The Los Angeles Times has the story.

From Mormons to Muslims, the Washington Post takes a look at how social pressure is pushing some Islamic gays to seek lesbian wives. At least in this case it's not the state doing the pressing, yet.

Fox anchorwoman Julie Banderas stands up to anti-gay crusader-loon Shirley Phelps-Roper in a fiery interview. You can go to YouTube and watch the fireworks for yourself.

On the website of the free-market Ludwig von Mises Institute, Gardner Goldsmith argues Don't Let Government Define Marriage (Or Optimal Child-Rearing Environments). Favorite part: even accepting debatable assertions about the most-advantageous family arrangement for kids, the amendment ought to frighten anyone concerned about liberty:

Proponents of legally or constitutionally codified heterosexual marriage ... claim that by legalizing only "one man - one woman" marriages, they promote the optimal conditions for the upbringing of a child.

But that begs the question: by only legalizing the optimal, do they agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal? If the conditions for raising a child vary, and run along a continuum from the worst (say, being raised by coyotes in the forest) to the possible optimal (being raised by loving, talented, brilliant millionaires) would those who could run government determine that anything below the millionaire level was suboptimal and therefore illegal? Would one have to undergo a wealth and intelligence test before being married, because marriage could lead to childrearing, and that child could possibly be raised in a suboptimal environment? The standard is arbitrary, and dangerous to a free society.

"Conservatives," Goldsmith writes, "used to have a reputation for being skeptical of government." Indeed.

The Anglican Communion is considering "temporarily" banning gay bishops and same-sex blessing ceremonies for the sake of "unity" between liberal, western churches and their deeply homophobic, mostly African brethren (who have also found a smattering of allies in Europe and America). Draft church legislation would urge dioceses to refrain from choosing bishops "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church."

Meanwhile, the American Episcopalians have elected a female presiding bishop, which also is making the reactionaries furious (although, in this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury is pledging his support).

At some point, the Anglicans will have to decide if they prefer unity (that is, communion) over Christ's message of love and inclusion. It really shouldn't be a difficult choice.

Update. Despite some premature reports, the news doesn't sound good. Blogger Father Jake has the story: Episcopal Church Bows to the Idol of Communion: Embraces Bigotry.

Update 2. The Presbyterians, too, affirm they won't ordain non-celibate gays. But the church's righteous lefty leadership urges divestment from Israel in support of Palestinian terrorists.

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force has a new politically correct obsession, declaring that:

The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Asian-American community is under-served, under-researched and under-studied.

Well, the gay Asian-Americans I know don't feel particularly under-served in relation to the rest of us, and neither do they lament that they're "under-researched and under-studied."

Last fall the Arcus Foundation awarded NGLTF a $2 million grant, augmented by an additional $1 million from Arcus founder and president Jon Stryker.

The executive director of the Arcus Foundation, incidentally, is Urvashi Vaid, former head of NGLTF, whose book Virtual Equality is an argument against "the mainstreaming of gay and lesbian liberation" and a call for further alliance-building with the left. It's also replete with criticisms of "gay conservatives," among whom she lumps Jonathan Rauch, Bruce Bawer, Andrew Sullivan, Paul Varnell and yours truly. (For more about Vaid, check out my column from a few years back, Who Stole the Gay Movement?)

Incidentally, along with its LGBT focus, the Arcus Foundation's other chief concern is great apes. But I must protest-the foundation is impermissibly excluding and thus further marginalizing the dolphin community.

The Advocate reports that an anti-gay congressman has stripped funding for L.A.'s Gay and Lesbian Center from the federal Transportation, Treasury, Housing, and Urban Development bill. Anti-gay animus is bad, but just where in the Constitution is it a role of the federal government to fund local gay centers? And let's just leave aside the fact that L.A. has its own vibrant and wealthy gay community. This little story sums up so much about what's wrong with the political situation in Washington.

Not about the above, but still regarding Republicans and Democrats, Right Side of the Rainbow ponders, "I can't be the only one who feels trapped between the unprincipled and the psychotic." Can you guess which is which?

The current cover of The New Yorker. Surely this doesn't help (the cause of gay marriage, that is).

A piece mostly critical of the ex-gay movement. On the website of the socially conservative National Review! Some truths just can't be denied forever, I guess.

It also shows that progress can be made when encountering the right, albeit slowly.

Yet with a few notably exceptions (e.g., Soulforce), too many LGBT "progressives" consider conservatives (all conservatives, whether religious fundamentalists or not) a lost cause. They won't deign to debate, much preferring to hold rallies amongst their own in order to better express their rage (and to collectively affirm their moral superiority). They're as benighted as they imagine their opposition to be.