Over at The New Republic's "The Plank" blog, IGF contributing author James Kirchick cast a critical eye at Liberal Silliness on Gay Marriage, which includes those progressives who don't understand why gays want to get married because, in their enlightened view, marriage remains a sexist, racist, oppressive institution. Example: Courtney E. Martin, author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body, acknowledging that gay couples should have the same legal rights endowed by marriage, yet can't help but wonder:
"But do these rights really trump the woman-as-property history and discriminatory present (on a state by state basis, of course)? Why do so many of my gay friends have such faith that they can transform the institution when I'm still so unsure?"
Replies Jamie:
"I answer a resounding 'Yes' to the first question and don't much care about the second because I don't see how marriage needs to be 'transformed' other than that it should be opened to homosexuals.
Of course, his post elicits some typical responses from offended liberals, including this gem: "Fire Jamie Kirchick. Nobody likes him."
--Posted on July 23, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 4 Comment(s)
Although John McCain became the certain GOP presidential nominee months ago, James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, the richest and most powerful of religious right organizations, has refused to endorse him. And by refusing to offer McCain a free ride, he succeeded in pushing him to make concession after concession to social conservatives. That explains, in no small measure, McCain's initial response opposing adoptions by same-sex couples. Having achieved what he wanted, Dobson is now considering, at this late date, providing his endorsement.
In contrast, although Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage, and for months failed to publicly express opposition to California's same-sex marriage-banning initiative (only doing so on July 1), as soon as he clinched the Democratic nomination he was unconditionally endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign and most other inside the beltway Democratic GLBT fundraising vehicles. And the amount of political capital Obama has pledged to spend on behalf of gay equality even when push comes to shove, as opposed to much feel-good political rhetoric, remains remarkably slim.
--Posted on July 22, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 12 Comment(s)
Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces, which they can not do under the military's don't ask, don't tell (DADT) policy, which congress passed (thanks to former Sen. Sam Nunn, Sen. Robert Byrd and others) and Bill Clinton signed into law.
A new Washington Post-ABC poll says 75% of Americans now support allowing gays in the military—compared to 44 percent in 1993. That support cuts across party identification to include a majority of Republicans. Even 57% of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military.
Given the bigger majorities Democrats are certain to enjoy in the Congress that convenes in January 2009, failure to remove this discriminatory measure, which undermines America's ability to defend itself and wage the war on terrorism, is utterly unacceptable. But will a President Obama, coming into office with the poorest presidential relationship with the U.S. military brass since Bill Clinton, be willing to push for it?
--Posted on July 21, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 11 Comment(s)
I've been traveling all week and will be on the road for another. Jon Rauch is also away, so blogging is going to remain skimpy for awhile. Still, I wanted to take note of the brouhaha over John McCain's thoughtless response to a question about gay adoption as reported in the New York Times:
Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. "I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption," he said.
And , after a stinging response from libertarians and limited government, big-tent conservatives (and, of less importance, LGBT Democratic activists), his campaign's statement to Andrew Sullivan revising and extending McCain's comments:
"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.
McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."
(The New York Times story is here.)
McCain's "clarified" position remain intentionally mushy, and if his original intent was to placate the anti-gay religious right, he's now managed to tick them off all the more. But it does represent some sort of progress that he was made to realize his earlier position, which was entirely consistent with the GOP's traditional dismissal of gay citizens and gay voters, in 2008 will no longer fly.
--Posted on July 16, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 18 Comment(s)
Updated July 17
Yes, this poll showing majority support for anti-gay state marriage amendments and, in general, candidates that support them—including among "soft Democrats"—is from the anti-gay Family Research Council. But it's also largely consistent with other polling. If there are polls showing more optimistic findings, I'd like to see them.
Also, the Washington Blade takes a clear-eyed look at opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions among a big majority of African Americans. The Blade reports that:
two-thirds of black Americans are against gay marriage. Although the numbers vary by poll, research shows most blacks oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The findings come as some surveys show a majority of whites have dropped their objections to same-sex unions.
Remember that this is a core Democratic demographic that much LGBT activist propaganda portrays as our steadfast progressive allies in the grand coalition of the left.
Even with an Obama victory, the passage of anti-gay marriage amendments in California and Florida remains frighteningly likely. Yet the overwhelming energy of national LGBT groups seems to be targeted at aiding a Democratic presidential win, not defeating anti-gay amendments, just as it was eight years ago.
More. I'm all for boycotting major donors to the anti-gay marriage drive in California or elsewhere; that's democracy in action. It's what the beltway LGBT groups ought to be doing if they weren't so all consumed by working on behalf of the Obama campaign.
Furthermore. Richard Nixon predicted same-sex marriage by 2000! From a Gail Collins op-ed in the NY Times:
Back in 1970, when Americans were still adjusting to the Supreme Court ruling that people of different races had a constitutional right to wed, someone suggested to President Richard Nixon that same-sex marriages would be next.
"I can't go that far; that's the year 2000," Nixon rejoined.
Collins comments, "Nixon was a little early." And if this November sees passage of anti-marriage amendments in California, Florida, and elsewhere, we may be looking at yet another generation of waiting. That's why defeating these amendment should be the #1 task for gay Americans and their political lobbies. Should be, but isn't. (After all, what mid-level political appointments can national LGBT activist leaders expect by working to defeat state amendments, as opposed to providing their unconditional support to their party's presidential campaign?)
--Posted on July 12, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 28 Comment(s)
I'm often critical of the Human Rights Campaign for turning itself into the LGBT fundraising arm of the Democratic Party. But it's good to remember that hard-core LGBT activist loonies are even more hostile to HRC, for all the wrong reasons.
A new statement from the San Francisco-based "And Castro for All" attacks HRC for what they claim is "HRC's ongoing refusal to support federal legislation that actually protects all LGBT people from employment discrimination." Actually, HRC does support transgender inclusion in the federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act that passed the House last year; it just didn't withhold its support when House leaders recognized that a bill covering cross-dressing and other transgender behaviors had no chance of passage, while one that dealt exclusively with workplace sexual orientation discrimination had an excellent chance of passing.
(Apparently, both congressional leaders and LGBT activists, including HRC, have now decided to put the whole shebang on hold until next year, when they hope larger Democratic majorities might allow the transgendered-incusive bill to advance. I think that's highly unlikely, but it allows Senate Democrats to avoid voting on sexual orientation protections during an election year.)
In any event, the San Francisco lefties offer a parting shot claiming that HRC's equal sign logo is actually "two gold bars" that:
"represent homosexuals living in the middle of the country—rather than the actual full diversity of our beautiful, global LGBT community."
So all those unhip gay people living between the coasts are not part of the "beautiful diversity" of the "LGBT community," perhaps because they're perceived as ... too white(?), too hard-working(?), or maybe just too non-transgressive? Hey HRC and your job-holding contributors, unconditional support for Obama just doesn't cut it anymore, rock the system-wise.
--Posted on July 10, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 15 Comment(s)
The anti-gay American Family Association has announced what will be a completely ineffectual boycott of McDonald's because of the fast-food giant's involvement with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The move follows ineffectual AFA boycotts of Disney (for "its embrace of the homosexual lifestyle"), Ford (for running ads in some gay publications) and Target stores.
What's striking about the AFA's hit list is that the group's wrath is directed at the most iconic of American companies. Outside the fever swamps of the religious right or, for different reasons (e.g., "globalization") the anti-capitalist left, these are the companies beloved most by hard-working, family-centric Americans. It's a sure sign of the increasingly farcical marginalization of the AFA and its ilk.
The Washington Post reports that:
Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.
While I doubt that corporations are actually targeting the small transgender market — a bit of p.c. boilerplate that the journalist picked up from LGBT activist groups — the gay market is a significant demographic.
Once again, free markets work to sweep away the ineffectual, inefficient and irrational (including unprofitable prejudice) when allowed by the state to do so.
More. So much for the hapless AFA's boycott efforts: Public Radio's "Marketplace" just ran a story on U.S. auto makers competing to capture the gay market. General Motors, for instance, sponsored a "speed dating" session at the Detroit gay pride festival. The transcript + audio is here. (Hat tip: Rick Sincere.)
--Posted on July 5, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 9 Comment(s)
No one's death is cause for celebration, but Jesse Helms's retirement from politics certainly was. My take (2002) on the man who banned people with HIV from entering America (you really had to be a special kind of human being to think of that):
He is often referred to...as "Senator No." Better would be "Senator Zero," as in "zero-sum." Reagan made conservatism credible by showing that it could solve problems. It could make headway against inflation, against economic entropy, against communism, even against "malaise." He believed that dynamic change, kindled by the prodigious energies of entrepreneurs and ordinary people, would produce win-win outcomes: a country that was stronger and also more genuinely compassionate, richer but also fairer.
Then there is Helms. In his world, if homosexuals win, heterosexuals lose. If blacks win, whites lose...
The difference between Reagan and Helms is the difference between a conservatism of hope and a conservatism of resentment. There are, I have little doubt, literally millions of Americans who would be conservatives today if not for the snarling visage of Jesse Helms.
In the fullness of time, history may write that Helms, despite his best efforts, did us a favor by helping discredit homophobia. A pity he degraded conservatism in the process.
--Posted on July 4, 2008 by Jonathan Rauch
Permalink | 56 Comment(s)
This has been all over the web, but it's still fun. The rabidly anti-gay American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Mississippi, runs an online news service that's set to auto-change "gay" to "homosexual in wire copy stories. In several pieces about runner Tyson Gay's record-breaking performance at the U.S. Olympic track and field finals, the AFA auto-changed his name to "Tyson Homosexual," as noted over at outsports.com and elsewhere.
Even conservative blogger James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web (scroll down to "William was a Homosexual Deceiver") found the AFA's intransigence more than slightly ridiculous.
(Relatedly, a friend emails me that "I've seen lots of headlines this week saying 'Gay Breaks World Record,' and I've beamed with pride.")
--Posted on July 2, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 7 Comment(s)
Encouraging numbers from a new TIME/ABT poll: National support for same-sex marriage is up to 42 percent, with the 51 percent opposition only barely mustering a majority. Gay marriage has moved from the fringes only a few years ago to being within eyeshot of parity. And opposition to an anti-SSM amendment to the U.S. Constitution now runs 58 percent.
Maybe that's why Barack Obama, who has previously said he thinks marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples, has come out against a California state constitutional initiative to do exactly that. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger is performing the same straddle—that is, opposing gay marriage but also opposing the effort to overturn it.
As IGF contributor Dale Carpenter points out over at volokh.com, being both anti-SSM and anti-anti-SSM makes little sense logically in a world where the policy is either to have SSM or not. But let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. The politicians are straddling because the climate of opinion is shifting. Obama and Schwarzenegger are barometers.
--Posted on July 1, 2008 by Jonathan Rauch
Permalink | 15 Comment(s)
This Advocate article looks at efforts by the nonpartisan Gill Action Fund to elect fair-minded (read gay-friendly) officials beginning at the lowest levels and then supporting them throughout their careers, a strategy that has been used successfully by the religious right and, more generally, by the conservative GOPAC. Interestingly, the two leaders of this effort are Patrick Guerriero, a former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans, and Bill Smith, a former employee of Karl Rove.
These guys seem willing to play hardball for providing select candidates with financial support. That's a refreshing change from gay Democrats, whether at the Human Rights Campaign or elsewhere, and gay Republicans, who are primarily party activists looking to elect their party's candidates, and then expand their niche in the party as a reward for their service. That's fair enough (except when HRC pretends to be nonpartisan, when it clearly no longer is). But I'm glad to see efforts such as this one that don't put partisanship first.
--Posted on June 26, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 8 Comment(s)
From The Advocate: "Sen. Obama reminded us this week that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, something LGBT people might have easily forgotten over the course of the primary." Meanwhile, thousands of gay couples wed across California. And Obama still hasn't (that I could find) spoken out against the California anti-gay marriage amendment, despite the swooning endorsements and piles of cash he's receiving from smitten LGBT activists and their followers.
But, as former Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel observed on her Dynamist blog, "If Obama comes out forcefully against the amendment—as he should—his African-American base in California and elsewhere won't like it."
More. Postrel also notes that "Blacks are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage and supportive of the [California] initiative, so much so that gay marriage supporters are essentially writing them off...," and that if, as widely expected, Obama turns out a hugh African-American vote in the Golden State, it will help pass the anti-gay marriage amendment. That's a point I've also made.
Furthermore. On June 25, Andrew Sullivan takes exception and says I'm wrong about Obama's position on the California amendment. But I think reader "avee" has hit the nail on the head about what's behind the confusion. He writes:
One or more commenters claim that Obama has spoken out against the amendment; neither blogger Steve nor I can find any such statement.
[Obama] has said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that state's should decide. He has also suggested that he doesn't have a problem with what's happening in CA. That double-talk does not amount to speaking out against the amendment....
UPDATE. On July 1, Obama finally issued a statement opposing the California anti-gay marriage amendment. Good. Now let's see how enthusiastically he speaks out against it (if at all) while on the campaign trail.
And yes, McCain is backing the admendment. Bad boy. But he's not getting all the campaign support, including voter registration/mobilization and mass solicitation of gay donations, being orchestrated by HRC and friends, is he? That's why Obama is being held to a higher standard, and why his long delay in coming out against the amendment was not acceptable.
--Posted on June 24, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 47 Comment(s)
We just can't trust them with marriage.
My Wall Street Journal article making the case for gay marriage comes with rotating "sponsored links." So guess who's advertising? Along with "See Today's Mortgage Rates" and "AARP Auto Insurance" we have...
* Divorce Advice and Tips, from www.divorce360.com
* Easy Online Divorce $299, from www.3stepdivorce.com
Why is heterosexual marriage even legal?
--Posted on June 23, 2008 by Jonathan Rauch
Permalink | 4 Comment(s)
Not all LGBT Americans are celebrating the newly gained freedom to marry in California, it seems. Writing over at The Advocte, IGF contributing author James Kirchick takes aim at a particularly insipid example of politically correct victimization posturing, the claim that "racist" white gays are forcing marriage on same-gender loving African Americans.
--Posted on June 19, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 32 Comment(s)
I'd like to add to what Jonathan has written below, on allowing religious people "conscientious-objector status" when it comes to requiring actions that affirm the equality of same-sex unions.
Almost all gay people, I'd say, want to be treated equally by the government, with the same rights and responsibilities as all citizens. That includes the right to marry (even if they choose not to marrry) and, for most, the right to serve in the military (even if they would choose not to do so).
Some gay people, however, don't merely want equal treatment by the state. They want to use the state against those who, based on deeply felt religious belief, do not want to offer their services to same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies, as Jonathan describes below.
That's called progressivism, but others would say it's engaging in a legal vendetta against those who hold religious convictions that run counter to the principles of gay equality.
Another example that has garnered much publicity is from Canada, where an anti-gay pastor is appealing his conviction for writing a letter to a local paper that was found to defame gay people (who were compared to pedophiles and drug dealers), and thus to have contributed to a climate that fosters anti-gay violence.
The U.S. religious right is having a field day with this action in Alberta, charging that it's a reason to oppose measures such as the proposed federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act. And that, in turn, has led some supporters of gay nondiscrimination to defend the Alberta ruling, holding that speech that incites ill will should be banned.
But that is indeed a slippery slope, and one that runs counter to the right to express unpopular, and indeed ugly, opinions — a principle once defended by liberals.
More. Dale Carpenter, writing over at The Volokh Conspiracy, shares his thoughts on religious liberty and same-sex marriage. Excerpt:
Religious freedom is a first and founding principle of this country. I think religious accommodation to private persons and organizations should be generously provided, even where not required by the Constitution. At the very least, accommodation should be made where it can be offered without harming the protected class. For that reason, I think an exemption should have been offered in several of the cases cited in the NPR report....
While I'd be generous about accommodating the religious objections of private persons, I am very wary of introducing a system of exemption for public officers serving the public with taxpayers' money.
--Posted on June 16, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 28 Comment(s)
Today NPR had an interesting, and ominous, story on how antidiscrimination law is (so far) trumping religious objections to gay marriage. For instance, when a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to let its property be used for a lesbian wedding, a civil-rights commission revoked a tax break for the site. Next stop: state court.
I hope the Methodists win, though better still if this complaint had never been brought. Gay-rights advocates will be badly burned politically—and the Madisonian in me thinks we'll deserve to be burned—if we use antidiscrimination law as a bulldozer against attempts by religious people to disassociate themselves from same-sex marriage. "It's the law, get used to it" is an unwise and insensitive approach. We can do 95% of what we want to do while letting religious people maintain conscientious-objector status. The other 5% percent is not worth the contention and fury it will cause.
As for using the law to force Christian photographers to shoot gay weddings (also covered in the NPR piece)—James Madison must be spinning in his grave. Freedom of religious conscience is the founding American freedom. For Pete's sake, live and let live.
--Posted on June 16, 2008 by Jonathan Rauch
Permalink | 20 Comment(s)
Here's a look at some items of interest in the wake of the CA marriage ruling:
A coalition of gay rights groups is urging out-of-state same-sex couples who marry in CA not to file lawsuits in their home states and in the federal courts demanding recognition of their unions. The reason:
"Pushing the federal government before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to get us bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer," the groups said....
When we've won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that point, we'll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we'll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states."
That seems like a healthy does of realpolitik, although I'd contend that focusing on winning legislatively is the way to make real advances while minimizing the risk of voter backlash (in CA, the legislature twice passed same-sex marriage bills, and the governor who vetoed them now says he supports the idea—and still all could be lost in November's ballot initiative when the masses vote on an anti-gay marriage state amendment that polls show has majority support).
I'm also guessing that some newly married gay couples will still sue in their home states, and that the likely results won't take us forward.
Somewhat related, but on a more positive note, Overlawyered.com looks at the ongoing Miller-Jenkins (Vermont-Virginia lesbian custody) legal battle, and how Virginia's highest court has now ruled in favor of the lesbian co-parent's visitation rights, in a state where conservatives have gone to great aims to deny any recognition of relationship rights for same-sex couples.
And the New York Times analyzes how "Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage," and finds:
While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll. ...
The ability to see the other person's point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner's concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.
Same-sex marriages is going to enrich the culture of marriage, it seems, just as some of us have always contended.
--Posted on June 11, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 3 Comment(s)
Feminist author Linda Hirshman's longish analysis in Sunday's Washington Post, Looking to the Future, Feminism Has to Focus, takes on the self-defeating aspects of the women's movement. The lessons she finds also apply, in many respects, to the fight for gay equality. For example, she writes that:
Faced with criticism that the movement was too white and middle class, many influential feminist thinkers conceded that issues affecting mostly white middle-class women—such as the corporate glass ceiling or the high cost of day care—should not significantly concern the feminist movement. Particularly in academic circles, only issues that invoked the "intersectionality" of many overlapping oppressions were deemed worthy.
But somehow, only those privileged by white middle-classness were expected to stop selfishly focusing on their own needs and goals. Hirshman continues:
Although other organizations work on women's issues when appropriate, none of the other social movements were much interested in making intersectionality their mission. The nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP... says nothing about feminism or homophobia or intersectionality in its mission statement.
An unmentioned exception, of course, is that the leading LGBT organizations make support for abortion rights and race-based preferences (see past Human Rights Campaign scorecards) litmus test issues and otherwise define themselves as working on behalf of the entire progressive agenda (see the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force's mission statement). But I digress. Hirshman goes on, and quotes Martha Burk, past president of the National Council of Women's Organizations (with brackets and ellipses in the original):
A lot of millennial feminism simply magnifies the weakness of the old movement. As Burk says: "When we started the [younger women's] task force, the young women wanted to identify it with environmentalism and prison rights and, and, and,..." Sound familiar?
She concludes:
So I'll invoke the insights of someone less than half my age, the young editor of Feministe, Jill Filipovic. "Mainstream liberal Democratic guys don't have to take feminism seriously because they know that, at the end of the day, we're going to be there," she told me.
Yep, sounds familiar.
--Posted on June 8, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 14 Comment(s)
At 1:28 in this video clip of Hillary Clinton's concession speech today, check out the ecstatic reaction of the young people in the crowd behind her when she hits "gay and straight" in her litany of supporters.
We're not baggage any more. A rising generation of voters identifies with us...and will shun politicians who shun us.
Glad I lived to see it.
--Posted on June 7, 2008 by Jonathan Rauch
Permalink | 13 Comment(s)
At his arraignment at Gitmo on Thursday, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed described what drives his jihad:
"I consider all American constitution" evil, he said, because it permits "same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad," he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. "Do you understand?"
Meanwhile, Dan Blatt over at Gay Patriot reports a story ignored by U.S. mainstream and gay media:
At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.
I could find no reference to this beating on any of the [U.S.] gay news web-sites I checked....
Martin Bosma, gay issues spokesman of the Dutch Party of Freedom (PVV), said..."This shows how strong the Islamic gaybashers feel they are. Even at daylight, on Queen’s Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike.... Either they will win, or we will win."
Or we could pretend that offering their allies tea with Obama will take care of all.
--Posted on June 7, 2008 by Stephen H. Miller
Permalink | 54 Comment(s)
» View Previous Entries
