IGF CultureWatch

I missed this last week, but conservative U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo ponders the meaning of gay conservatives (and IGF), following Andrew Sullivan's plug.
--Stephen H. Miller

President Bush calls for leaving behind partisan rancor (good), but then picks up the cultural cudgel:

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.

But revealingly, no call for a federal Constitutional amendment.

Gay Patriot West faults activists' double standards, as the Democrats choose Virginia's Gov. Tim Kaine, fresh from signing and sending to voters one of the most draconian anti-gay marriage state amendments, ever, to deliver their response to the president:

[W]hile the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) faulted California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenengger in multiple press releases for his veto of a bill which would have recognized same-sex marriage in the Golden State, the only reference on HRC's web-site to Kaine's support of his state's amendment resolution was a Washington Post article on the Virginia referendum.

GPW also discovered that HRC's mission statement no longer calls the group "bipartisan," as it once did. Score one for truth in advertsing.

I can't say with certainty whether anti-gay Sen. Sam Brownback was in fact making an anti-gay crack when he said, in discussing gay marriage, "You look at the social impact of the countries that have engaged in homosexual marriage. You'll know 'em by their fruits," quoting (after a fashion) Matthew 7:16.

There's plenty to castigate Brownback for (Sweden doesn't even provide gays with full marriage equality) without going overboard over an ambiguous comment. But that's exactly the trap HRC fell into, with this heated response, saying Brownback's "derogatory use of 'fruits' sinks below decency." Of course, HRC is merely (as always) playing to its fundraising base, not trying to sway the wider public, and certainly not reaching out to conservative Christians who might be more familiar with biblical quotations as a part of political discourse-and thus just as likely to give Brownback a pass on the quote as gay activists were to insist it was an outright slur.

More: Would Howard Dean recognize the New Testament if it got up and introduced itself to him? Apparently not.

More Recent Postings
01/22/06 - 01/28/06

Just for fun, the Oprah folks provide a chatty summation, with lots of photos, of Friday's visit with the Brokeback cast. This sort of publicity is priceless.

Dale Carpenter takes a look at what's really motivating some gay activists to oppose Alito (hint: it's not gay rights).

Joe Solmonese's Human Rights Campaign hits a new low by declaring:

A glance at his resume reads like an anti-gay textbook. From striking down a policy that protected gay students from harassment to his view that would threaten Congress' power to enact non-discrimination laws, he's the wrong choice for the court.

As I've noted before, even the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force supports the Alito free-speech ruling that HRC condemns as "anti-gay."
Moreover, Alito ruled to protect a gay student from harassment in another decision that didn't involve draconian restrictions on speech. And he said specifically during his testimony that Congress has the right to pass anti-discrimiation laws that protect gays.

Abortion-rights activist Solmonese should have stayed at Emily's List, where he happily endorsed supporters of the anti-gay federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Abortion over all!

As Carpenter writes, "The national gay groups...have pretty much taken themselves out of any serious debate about President Bush's judicial nominees."

Britain is atwitter over the revelation that Mark Oaten, a leading Liberal Democratic member of Parliament, married with children, has been frequenting male hustlers. Oaten may be an adulterer, but he's not a hypocrite-apparently, he's about as close to a libertarian as you're likely to find in Britain. But like so many others, a la Brokeback, he thought he could live a lie and it eventually caught up with him.

Also from Britain, a look at why libertarians, or at least those who still believe in freedom of association, are sorely needed.

On a happier note, here's some news from the future.

P.S. Thanks, Andrew. Much appreciated.

NBC has canceled "The Book of Daniel," about a troubled Episcopalian priest and his family, but not because it had a gay character (one of Daniel's sons). Religious conservatives were successful in mau-mauing advertisers to flee because of far more controversial plot elements. Foremost among these: Daniel's conversations with Jesus, who gently encourages him to do the right thing ("now would be a good time to stop," he tells Daniel, who is addicted to prescription pills). This wasn't the judgmental storm trooper that fundamentalists like to envision. And so one of TV's rare attempts to deal with spirituality in everyday life, as lived by imperfect men and woman, bites the dust.

More: Some interesting comments, many arguing the show was poorly conceived and quite rightly pulled-and that social conservative activists had little to do with its demise.

More evidence that Brokeback is becoming a cultural touchstone. While answering questions at Kansas State University, President Bush had this exchange (from the White House transcript):

Q: You're a rancher. A lot of us here in Kansas are ranchers. I was just wanting to get your opinion on "Brokeback Mountain," if you've seen it yet? (Laughter.) You would love it. You should check it out.

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen it. I'll be glad to talk about ranching, but I haven't seen the movie. (Laughter.) I've heard about it. I hope you go -- you know -- (laughter) -- I hope you go back to the ranch and the farm is what I'm about to say. I haven't seen it. (Laughter and applause.)

While being ever-mindful of his conservative base, it sounds like Bush was still having some fun with the question. But to read the AP account picked up by 365.gay.com as well as most of the mainstream media, you'd think he went into shock.

More: Ok, the video coverage is a bit more revealing. But this is George W.-when answering questions on his own Social Security reform, he hems and haws and looks awkward. Sorry, but I'm not offended by his response here.

More Recent Postings
01/15/06 - 01/21/06

Via the Washington Post: Anti-U.S. Tack Backfires on Canada's Liberals. We'll see if the same proves true next year here in the U.S.

The New York Times takes another look at ABC's killed-before-it-aired reality show "Welcome to the Neighborhood," in which racially and culturally diverse couples tried to overcome their would-be neighbors' prejudices and win a house. A gay couple, Stephen Wright and John Wright, with an adopted child, won. As I noted at the time, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) joined those cautioning ABC against running the show (some racial-grievance groups were upset). The Times piece makes GLAAD's lack of support seem all the more ludicrous: one of the anti-gay neighbors eventually admits he has a gay son, with whom he is reconciled after getting to know the gay contestants. As the article recounts:

For Stephen Wright, who was recruited for the series through his church, which has a predominantly gay membership, the outcome has been bittersweet. On the one hand, he has yet to achieve his goal of telling his family's story before a big audience. "We opened our souls and the life of our family, and we did it because we thought we could make a difference," he said.

But Mr. Wright said he took solace that through their participation in the series, he and his partner had had a positive impact on at least one relationship, that of Mr. Stewart and his son. "We said at the outset that if we changed one person's heart or mind, it would be worth it," he said. "We have empirical evidence we did that."

"And," he added, "we won a house."

Since this whole sad episode, GLAAD has come under new leadership. Here's hoping the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

More: I should note that the Times article suggests that the network may have pulled the show fearing that Christian conservatives (whose support ABC/Disney needed to promote its Narnia flick) would be upset that the gay couple won by gaining acceptance. ABC denies this, but I'd say if you think you'll tick off the social conservatives and the racial and gay activists, why run it?

Revisionist history: Former HRC spokesperson Wayne Besen, picking up on the Times story, criticizes "evangelists" for killing Neighborhood, a show that "was exactly what America needs to see," but fails to mention that GLAAD and the racial-grievance groups were most vocal in demanding the show not be aired.