Independent Gay Forum - CultureWatch

Dobson v. Warren (2)

info@indegayforum.org (Jonathan Rauch) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST

by Jonathan Rauch

Better late than never, a friend points out this "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," published in October by James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and fairly broadly criticized at the time.

It's long and hysterical—another sign of how beleaguered the hard-core Christian Right is feeling. Still more revealing, I count 18 paragraphs on homosexuality and gay marriage, versus four on abortion (aka, from a pro-life point of view, murder of babies). I found no instances of the word "divorce." "Adultery"? You gotta be kidding.

This is the kind of anti-gay obsessiveness and upside-down prioritizing that Rick Warren and others of his ilk and generation are moving away from. The more I think about Obama's choice of Warren to lead the inaugural prayer, the more I like it. Culturally, the moment is right to reach out to reachable evangelicals and marginalize the hysterics and obsessives who have all but monopolized their movement. The cultural left doesn't understand the difference between Warren and Dobson, but evangelicals sure will. And they'll know Obama and Warren are publicly declaring Dobsonism obsolete.

Farewell to a Dismal Year

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Adieu to 2008, a wretched year for gays. Voters banned same-sex marriage in Florida, Arizona and — most painfully — California, one of the few states where gays could legally wed. Arkansas banned adoptions by gay couples.

In every state where the populace has been able to vote on the issue of marriage equality, they've rejected it.

But fear not; our LGBT national political organizations weren't lazy. They put endless effort into raising funds and donating labor to get out the vote for Obama. That this meant an historically high turnout by minority voters who overwhelmingly voted to strip gay people of legal equality is no matter — we have the chosen one!!! Clap your hands and dance for joy!!!

And for our electoral defeat in California, blame the Mormons, a politically correct protest target. (And for gosh sake, never mention the pro Prop 8 robocall quoting Obama stating his faith-based opposition to letting gays marry.)

Only weeks away from the chosen one's inauguration, he's proved his mettle by putting repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" on indefinite hold and honoring an evangelical champion of rolling back of our right to equality. Not reason to celebrate, you claim? Party pooper!

As for 2009, we may see a (thankfully) toothless federal hate crimes bill, but the long awaited Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is sure to be impaled by activists' demands that it include cross dressing at work. Only in fantasyland are newly elected purple state Democrats in Congress going to go for that.

But hey, several LGBT Democratic activists have been or soon will be rewarded with mid-level administrative positions in one or another of Washington's rapidly expanding alphabet bureaucracies. Deliverance is nigh!

And a happy and joyous New Year to all!

Proposition 8: What Went Wrong? Plenty

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Here's an interesting postmortem on the failed campaign to defeat California's Proposition 8, which rolled back marriage equality by placing a ban on same-sex marriage into the Golden State's constitution. What went wrong? A lot, apparently, including bland, focus-group-generated messaging.

Other insider critiques have noted a decentralized campaign structure that insisted on consensus among a group leadership, thus playing into the left's deference to anti-hierarchical organization but leaving no one with ultimate "buck stops here" responsibility — and an organization that was in no sense nimble, and unable to respond to rapidly changing developments on the ground.

More on what went wrong can be found here.

James Dobson He Ain't

info@indegayforum.org (Jonathan Rauch) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Jonathan Rauch

My mind boggled when a friend assured me the other day that Rick Warren is James Dobson with a friendlier face. HRC doesn't go quite that far, but it does say this: "Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian [sic...Dobson is a psychologist; should HRC know this?] James Dobson disagree on."

True, Warren is a transitional figure, hardly what gay people would call enlightened. But he is no Dobson or Wildmon or Robertson or Falwell. He has tried to move the evangelical movement away from politics. He thinks too little about homosexuality, instead of obsessing on it. By mostly ignoring homosexuality, he puts it in reasonable proportion to other (as he sees it) sins—and, with the religious right, mere proportionality is half the battle.

It's worth actually reading the BeliefNet interview which has become the locus classicus for those who call Warren a hater. He calls same-sex marriage a redefinition on the same order as adult-child marriage. Obtuse, to say the least. He also says, "Civil unions are not a civil right." Meaning, he explains, that the constitution doesn't mandate them.

But he also says he does not oppose California's domestic partner law (which is a civil union law, whatever the statutory name). And he says it's a "no brainer" that divorce is a bigger threat to family than gay marriage. And that the reason gay marriage gets so much more attention than divorce is because "we always love to talk about other [people's] sins more than ours."

Of course he is an evangelical preacher and he does think that homosexual relations are a sin which should not be dignified with public sanction. But he represents a major step forward over the generation before him (as the generation after him is better still). I hope that, beneath the denunciations, the folks on our side understand this.

The New Middle: Fiscally Liberal, Socially Not So Much?

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Still more. Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens takes aim, suggesting that Jews also should be appalled by the selection, in Shame on You, Rick Warren.

Updates:

Sorry, Jon, but yes he is.

Time magazine spells out just how offensive Warren's comments were:

Warren told Beliefnet that he thinks allowing a gay couple to marry is similar to allowing "a brother and sister to be together and call that marriage." He then helpfully added that he's also "opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage." The reporter, who may have been a little surprised, asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" "Oh, I do," Warren immediately answered. I wish the reporter had asked the next logical follow-up: If gays are like child-sex offenders, shouldn't we incarcerate them?

Writes Time's John Cloud:

Obama reminds me a little bit of Richard Russell Jr., the longtime Senator from Georgia who — as historian Robert Caro has noted — cultivated a reputation as a thoughtful, tolerant politician even as he defended inequality and segregation for decades. ... Obama also said today that he is a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays, which is — given his opposition to equal marriage rights — simply a lie. It recalls the time Russell said, "I'm as interested in the Negro people of my state as anyone in the Senate. I love them."

So why are so many thoughtful people so willing to give Obama a pass? And when is the veil going to fall from their eyes?

From libertarian-minded Reason magazine:

Oh LGBTers. Don't cry. I know President-elect Barack Obama’s breaking your heart. It sucks, doesn't it, when you hitch your wagon to a political party, but the party is just not that into you? ... But you know who your real friends are, LGBTers. And we’re going to help you get through this. Besides, who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?

And from columnist Richard Cohen:

Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.

But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.

Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue — the rights of gays to be treated equally — as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.

---

Rick Warren is a new kind of evangelical leader — he supports bigger government with increased spending on social welfare programs. Of course, he also considers same-sex marriage an abomination, comparing the "redefiniton of a marrige" to let gays wed with legitimizing incest, child abuse and polygamy (here's a video of Warren urging support for California's Proposition 8).

That Obama selected him to deliver his inaugural innovation should be a warning of where the new administration might be heading — politically trying to bring evangelicals (especially younger evangelicals) into his expansive government, "share the wealth" fold. Is the new agenda fiscally profligate, redistributionist, and (moderately) socially conservative?

And are LGBT national "leaders," who turned their groups into fundraising funnels for the Democratic Party — and made getting out the vote for Obama their #1 priority (at the expense of fighting anti-gay state initiatives supported overwhelming by the huge minority turnout Obama triggered) — just beginning to sense this?

More. From Washington's The Politico:

Barack Obama's choice of a prominent evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration is a conciliatory gesture toward social conservatives who opposed him in November ...

[Warren] opposes abortion rights but has taken more liberal stances on the government's role in fighting poverty, and backed away from other evangelicals' staunch support for economic conservatism. But it's his support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that drew the most heated criticism from Democrats Wednesday. ...

In selecting Warren, [Obama] is choosing to reach out to conservatives on a hot-button social issue, at the cost of antagonizing gay voters who overwhelmingly supported him.

And from MSNBC FirstRead:

As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to.

Last month, you may recall, the incoming administration signaled that it won't seek repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" gay ban until some unspecified time when "consensus" emerges among military leaders.

Gays planning to attend the Obama inauguration are advised to take public transportation. Just remember to sit in the back of the bus.

Mixed Media

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Mixed media update. James Kirchick vs. Sean Penn, from Page Six of the New York Post. The hip Hollywood left continues its mendaciousness.
----------

Newsweek runs a cover story making the case for gay marriage ("Our Mutual Joy"). Nice, but it's taking the liberal mainstream U.S. media way too long to get here. Britain's The Economist ran a similar cover story titled "Let Them Wed" — in January 1996.

And American popular culture remains deeply schizophrenic about gays: On one hand, featuring more openly gay characters on prime time TV, for example, albeit in supporting roles. And on the other, there's David Letterman's smarmy sneering about two men kissing in the new Harvey Milk biopic, as reported by the Washington Post's Hank Stuever:

"I didn't want to screw it up," Franco told Letterman on "Late Show" last week.

"See, if it's me, I'm kind of hoping I do screw it up," Letterman shot back. "That's what you want, isn't it?"

"To screw it up?" Franco asked.

"I mean, do you really want to be good at kissing a guy?" Letterman said as his audience howled with delight.

Remember, Letterman's the "hip" one, while Leno is for oldsters. It's just one more example of what Stuever labels "post-homophobic homophobia, the kind seen most weeks in 'Saturday Night Live' sketches," and it remains ubiquitous among those who know better but can't resist demeaning us for the shear sport of it.

More. There's a connection between the revulsion toward male intimacy that Letterman and his ilk promote daily, and this:

A Brooklyn real estate agent who was beaten to a pulp while walking tipsily with his brother — by bat-wielding thugs who apparently mistook them for gay — was declared brain-dead Tuesday, police said....

The 31-year-old father of two was badly bludgeoned early Sunday in Bushwick by three black men who, according to witnesses, shouted anti-gay and anti-Hispanic slurs....

Jose and his 38-year-old brother, Romel, who was visiting from Ecuador, had been drinking at a church party and then a Mexican restaurant and were holding onto each other as they stumbled home along Bushwick Ave. at 3:30 a.m. Sunday.

Hat tip: Box Turtle Bulletin.

Furthermore. In light of the above, recent remarks by Christian rightist/one-time popular entertainer Pat Boone are even more offensive. He spews forth:

Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening right now in our cities? Oh, I know the homosexual "rights" demonstrations haven't reached the same level of violence, but I'm referring to the anger, the vehemence, the total disregard for law and order and the supposed rights of their fellow citizens. ....

There is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists.

At least Boone isn't likely to get a free ride from LGBT media and inside-the-beltway Democratic Party fundraising funnels. But as regards Letterman and friends, I think reader "avee" is correct when he comments:

As long as Letterman / SNL earn their liberal cred via GOP/Bush-hatred, "progressives" are quite willing to give them a pass on their "post-homophobic homophobia."

Sadly, I supsect the Lettermans held in high regard by the popular culture have a far greater impact on the young bashers who actually are beating, and sometimes killing, us than do elderly looney tunes such as Boone.

Update: Letterman recently joked about the arson that partially burned down Sarah Palin's church. That's sure to earn him "free to be a homophobic jerk" points from the left for many years to come.

‘We Throw Down the Gauntlet’

info@indegayforum.org (Jonathan Rauch) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Jonathan Rauch

Everyone, and by that I mean every person in the United States if not the world, should read this seminal speech given by Frank Kameny in 1969. It surfaced recently among his papers in the Library of Congress and constitutes his statement on behalf of a gay man, Benning Wentworth, who was appealing the denial of a security clearance by the Defense Department.

We throw down the gauntlet, clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously. We state for the world, as we have stated for the public, we state for the record and, if the Department forces us to carry the case that far, we state for the courts that Mr. Wentworth, being a healthy, unmarried, homosexual male, 35 years old, has lived and does live a suitable homosexual life, in parallel with the suitable active heterosexual sexual life lived by 75 percent of our healthy, unmarried, heterosexual males holding security clearances; and he intends to continue to do so indefinitely into the future. And please underline starting with the word “and intends to do so into the future”. Underline that, please, Mr. Stenographer.

To read this visionary speech and realize that not even 40 years have passed is to marvel at this country of ours. And at our good fortune in having Frank Kameny among us.

I'm told, by the way, that Benning Wentworth is still alive and well. Hats off to him, too. Imagine the courage it took for an open homosexual to stand up to the Defense Department in 1969.

Cracks in the Wall

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

The AP reports: "Top evangelical resigns after backing gay unions." Recent comments by Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, triggered an uproar that led to his stepping down. He's taken a number of trendy left-leaning views, such as buying into global warming alarmism full throttle. But it was his remarks in support of same-sex civil unions, and an acknowledgment he's "shifting" on gay marriage, that led to his being ousted.

Hurrah for Jared Polis!

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

In November, businessman Jared Polis (D-Colo.) became the first openly gay man elected to the House as a freshman. But his op-ed in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal is likely to give many of his party's "progressives" fits. Polis says a better way to help revive the U.S. auto industry is to rely on private funding by cutting capital gains taxes for car makers, and that "if it works in this particular case to incentivize additional risk-taking through a capital-gains tax exemption, it may indeed work in other cases or, I dare say, across the entire U.S. economy." He goes on to note that "Any pretension of a government bailout [of auto makers] being a good deal for taxpayers should be abandoned for the insincere (or perhaps ignorant) rhetoric that it is."

He's the anti-Barney Frank!

Old Time Religion

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

The Mormons play the victim card, accusing LGBT demonstrators of "violence" against Latter Day Saints. At issue, of course, are the ongoing protests, some in front of Mormon churches, following the LDS's massive fundraising effort on behalf of California's Prop 8, whose passage now bans same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

As others have noted, the ad makes no mention of, say, the actual violence that gay people encounter at the hands of those stoked full of hate by supposed Christians who've turned the gospel message of love inside out.

Relatedly, "Prop 8 The Musical" is making the rounds. I appreciate the passion, but doubt that careening so close to blasphemy is going to sway those indoctrinated to view gay people as unworthy of legal equality. But I'm told that God loves a good joke, and this one is pretty funny.

More. I don't think arguing in favor of lowering the bar for cohabitation rights is particularly helfpul. On the other hand, a federal civil unions law, as Chris Crain discusses, could act as an important step toward eventual marriage equality.

On Hold

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

After November's sweeping electoral defeats for gay legal equality—especially the roll back of marriage equality in California—caution is in the air. Reports the New York Times, N.Y. Democrats May Skip Gay Marriage Vote:

After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.

But now, party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.

In other words, although Democrats finally now control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature, gay marriage is too contentious to bring up, probably until after the next election cycle. But what if the Republicans retake the governorship or the state senate in 2010?

That's also the problem with recent signals from the incoming Obama administration that it won't raise repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy anytime soon. And if they wait more than a year, don't count on any action too close to the next congessional elections in 2010. But what if Republicans then retake the Senate (and even the House) in Washington?

Caution is understandable, and the Democratic politicians now advocating going slow until there is more popular support for our cause may have a point. That is, if in the meantime a real, concerted effort is made to build a consensus for, say, advancing marriage equality for gay people.

That challenge also is behind the debate over whether the Washington, D.C. city council should pass a same-sex marriage bill. Although the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, there are "issues." As the Washington Blade reports, Black activists urge caution on D.C. marriage bill:

With blacks making up nearly 57 percent of the population in D.C., black gay activists said gay marriage supporters must redouble their efforts to reach out to blacks and other minorities in the District.

"I don’t know if we can obtain the allies to help us defeat a referendum in the District," said Carlene Cheatam, one of the founding members of the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Men & Women. "I'm not worried about our elected city government," Cheatam said. "They are all supportive because they equate marriage rights with civil rights. It's the general population that I'm concerned about."

Cheatam and other black leaders say coalitions and alliances would have to be built between gays and black community institutions, including historic black churches, "to educate the community on why the right to marry is a civil right." (More on outreach to black voters is offered in this New York Times op-ed by Charles M. Bow.)

The danger is that November's electoral disaster will be used to bury efforts to advance gay equality, and that delaying efforts until after the next election cycle means that, once again, our issues can be used to solicit gay dollars for Democrats and their LGBT fundraising fronts in 2010 with the promise that sometime afterward our rights will be addressed by our elected representatives. We've heard that song before, too.

More Lessons from Our Mistakes

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

"What's next for the GLBT community," asks Washington, D.C.'s MetroWeekly, which approached "the leaders of a number of national GLBT and HIV/AIDS organizations" for their thoughts on the new administration and "what the community can achieve." Some of those interviewed are "GLBT" Obamists upholding the party line, but outgoing Log Cabin Republican chief Patrick Sammon offers some clear-headed observations.

On expectations for the Obama administration, Sammon remarks:

My concern is that the Democrats are going to treat the gays likes a constituency, that we're going to get one bone thrown our way, one little reward, and then they expect us to be quiet. I hope that reward isn't hate crimes. While that's good legislation, I don't think anyone believes that passing the hate-crimes bill as it's currently written is going to have this transformative effect on the lives of gay and lesbian people.

And on the success of the anti-gay marriage initiatives, especially the roll back in California, Sammon risks accusations of "racial scape-goating" when he notes:

It doesn't mean we're pointing fingers at anyone, but you have to acknowledge the numbers. The fact is Sen. Obama's presence on the ballot increased turnout — four years ago, African Americans were 6 percent of the electorate in California, this year they were 10 percent and they voted in huge margins [for Proposition 8]. So let's figure out as a community how we can do better to engage people of color and really have a comprehensive strategy to gain allies for equality among African Americans.

Or "the community" could just go on doing what it's been doing (or, more to the point, not doing) and expect that whatever Obama deems to provide is what we deserve.

Whose Rights Are Righter?

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Should companies run by individuals who donated to efforts to pass anti-gay marriage initiatives be boycotted? What about businesses that contract with a service provider whose chief executive supported an anti-gay marriage initiative? The L.A. Times looks at the dispute between holding those accountable who work to denys us equal rights vs. punishing individuals for exercising their rights to free speech and to support political causes that reflect their personal values.

The story asks, "Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported [California's] Proposition 8?" Given that many of the examples involve the film industry and California-based arts organizations, the question alludes to the belief among Hollywood liberals that refusing to hire people who defended and provided agitprop on behalf of Stalin during the height of the Gulag shall forever remain an unpardonable offense. Or was it that they just felt the government had no right to inquire about and make public one's membership in the Communist Party? Tricky questions, these.

Added: Okay, I'll be less namby-pamby and take a stand: Given a choice, I'd avoid purchasing from, or otherwise doing business with, a company whose top executive wrote a personal check to support an anti-gay initiative. Even if they are not owners of privately held firms, their compensation is tied to the company's revenues and profits; when my dollars go to their competitors, they ultimately have fewer cents to donate to causes that seek to deny us equal treatment by the state. That these companies might internally treat gay workers on par with nongay workers doesn't sway me.

Law Suits that Over-Reach

Another item in the news doesn't concern a boycott but a discrimination suit that forced eHarmony.com to provide services to gays seeking same-sex matches. The fact that the suit succeeded is no cause for joy; it opens the door to all sorts of mischief via the misuse of the American legal system.

What about forcing gay-exclusive dating services to provide matches for heterosexuals? Or using the power of the state to force a service that specializes in matches among Jewish people to go non-denominational?

As David Bernstein, who teaches constitutional law at George Mason Univeristy, tells the Wall Street Journal, the discrimination claim "seems like quite a stretch." Morever, we ought to be wary of giving social conservatives justification for denouncing the LGBT movement as authoritarian. It's one thing, after all, to make a decision to boycott, or even to organize a boycott, and quite another to enlist the state to remake private businesses to conform to a governmental model of engineered social equality.

When rights are in conflict, erring on the side of liberty over "equality" is always a good bet.

The Judicial Strategy, on Steroids

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban. Gay couples should be entitled to equal justice under the law. The fear, however, is that if the court does overturn the popular vote to ban gays from marrying, what would the voters do next? Recall state justices? Eventually, the popular will has to be confronted. As Jon Rauch, John Corvino and other have eloquently explained, you have to win the moral argument (and a majority of hearts and minds) at some point, or keep facing an ever worsening backlash to unpopular judicial decrees.

Of course, the court could nullify the vote for Prop. 8 — thus restoring marriage equality in the Golden State — and everything might work out well in the end. But let's not pretend that there's no risk here.

More. From The Advocate:

People from both inside and outside the [No on Prop 8] campaign are pointing fingers at the small clique of California LGBT leaders who directed the campaign — Lorri Jean of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, Geoff Kors of Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Kate Kendell, Delores Jacobs of the San Diego LGBT Community Center, and Michael Fleming of the David Bohnett Foundation — charging that their insularity and inexperience with the humongous task at hand turned what should have been a difficult victory into a painful loss.

"They just didn't want to hear from people," says one Democratic Party insider, whose repeated offers to connect the campaign with powerful donors went ignored. "They just were asleep, and they were talking [only] to each other."

Meanwhile, national LGBT fundraising fronts were to a great extent missing in action, consumed with the all important task of getting out the vote for Obama.

Another observation: Nurtured on campus leftwing politics, it's my personal experience that many career LGBT activists are absurdly focused on process, not prgamatism. They wouldn't last long in the business world, which is perhaps why they're not there.

Learning from Our Mistakes?

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

The Washington Blade reports:

Terry Leftgoff, a gay California-based political consultant who worked on previous campaigns against anti-gay initiatives, said the “No on 8” campaign had “a slow, mismanaged campaign strategy that was a series of blunders.”

“It was clear there was a minimal ground operation and an extremely ineffective media campaign, both of which are vital to any campaign’s success,” he said. ...

“Numerous volunteers were turned away by ‘No on Prop 8’ on Election Day because there was no real [get out the vote] strategy,” he said. ...

Leftgoff also criticized the “No on 8” campaign for its limited outreach to black and Latino voters.

As we've noted, LGBT dollars and activism on behalf of the Obama campaign dwarfed efforts to fight the anti-gay marriage props in California, Florida and Arizona, and the successful initiative to ban adoptions by gay couples in Arkansas.

Exit polls showed about 70 percent of black voters approved of California's Prop 8, and one of the best observations in the Blade piece is from author/activist Robin Tyler:

"Coalition politics does not mean we get to fight for your rights and you get to vote our civil rights away," she said. "That’s not coalition politics — that’s prejudice and fear and discrimination."

In the wake of the California defeat, there have been ongoing protests against the Mormons for funding pro-Prop 8 ads and get out the vote efforts. Rick Warren's evangelical Saddleback (mega) Church was also targeted. For the most part, that's understandable and positive (although certainly not the infantile mailing of faux white powder pretend terrorism, if indeed that was done by angry gays, which has not been demonstrated).

But LGBT leaders (such as they are) seem at a loss when it comes to anti-gay African Americans. Having failed to reach out to such a resolutely Democratic voting constituency, which turned out in record-breaking number to support Obama, activists have avoided (as far as I can see) organizing protests against anti-gay African American churches.

Protesting against Mormons, after all, doesn't raise those difficult politically correct issues — especially when LGBT progressives (black and white) seem quick to attribute criticism of black voters to gay white racism. (For another critical view of the gay protests and "the vile and sickening displays of racism displayed by gay demonstrators," check out this post over at the Classical Values blog.)

More. The Obama-quoting pro Prop 8 robocall. This deserves much more attention.

Furthermore. I guess Candorville is just another example of "racial scape-goating."

Political Awakening?

info@indegayforum.org (Jonathan Rauch) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Jonathan Rauch

In California, spontaneous protests over the passage of Prop 8 continue to swell. Now there's talk of a national protest, though whether this amounts to anything remains to be seen. This is starting to look important.

I share some of Dale Carpenter's reservations about the optics of protesting against churches. But I wonder, hopefully, whether we're seeing a gay political awakening on the gay-marriage front.

For one reason, I'm so very, very tired of hearing from our opponents that gay folks don't really care much about marriage anyway. For another, the civil-rights era in the marriage struggle is ending.

The civil-rights model tried to separate marriage from the political process, because we didn't have nearly enough straight support to win. That left our opponents with the political field to themselves while we busied ourselves in the courts. Not any more. We now have enough straight allies to win, long-term, in the political arena.

To judge from the protests, that's where we'll be going. Goodbye Thurgood Marshall, hello Martin Luther King. Goodbye Lambda Legal, hello ACT-UP. Sure, more love, less anger than in the AIDS days. But the protests, provided they are peaceful and don't turn hateful or anti-religious, point the way forward.

A friend in California writes:

The battle now is purely one in the culture. Against every instinct of our framers, we now have to fight for our rights (or this one, at least) in the political arena itself. That means the protests are the leading edge now, not the courts.

If more gay people in California and elsewhere draw that lesson from Prop 8, our loss won't have been in vain.

This Was Victory?

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Updated November 10, 2008

California, Florida and Arizona banned same-sex marriage; Arkansas banned adoptions by gay couples. Kevin Ivers, blogging over at Citizen Crain, hits the nail on the head:

The 2008 election was, in fact, a disaster for gays.... When I learned on Facebook this morning that dear gay friends of mine in New York were dancing in Times Square, and other friends in Washington were celebrating in front of the White House and actually comparing the experience to the fall of the Berlin Wall—while gay marriage was going down the toilet in California—it was astounding to me....

The gay movement used to be about thinking outside the box, including the one we ourselves might be in, and taking nothing for granted. But something happened over the last several years that changed all that. Now it's just…a gigantic co-opting of our energies by a political party that does nothing in return. Besides a whole lot of fundraising.

As one of his readers comments:

I briefly showed up a Stonewall "Victory" party in Sacramento which I THOUGHT was focused on Prop 8. Turns out it was more of a Democratic Party victory party with little emphasis on Prop 8.... By about 9:00 pm, as Obama was giving his victory speech, the results for Prop 8 started trickling in and showed an early lead for "YES." But no one seemed to notice or care.... By the ebullient atmosphere, you'd think Prop 8 was some new dog licensing statute.... I left after only a few minutes—heartsick, disgusted, and angry at the return numbers and also at peoples' dispassionate reaction.

And here's another first-hand account by a volunteer on the "No on 8" campaign, who describes the "No" campaign as "the most poorly put together effort I have ever seen."

The banner headline in the Nov. 7 Washington Blade blares "'Change' Has Come to America" with a huge, reverential photo of Obama, arm raised to accept the adulation of his adoring masses. It overshadows a smaller boxed article, "Voters in Calif., Fla. and Ariz. Ban Same-Sex Marriage." In an era in which gay activism has become a wholly owned fundraising subsidy of the Democratic National Committeee, that's the change we can believe in.

More. Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo examines the impact of African-American Obama supporters, 70% of whom voted for Prop 8, and concludes: "Had black turnout matched levels of previous elections, the vote on the gay-marriage ban—which trailed in the polls for much of the summer—would have been much closer. It might even have failed."

The same could be said of Florida, where a hugh black turnout for Obama helped to pass an amendment banning not just same-sex marriage but legal recognition of "substantially similar" partnerships that might bestow the benefits of marriage.

Furthermore. You might think major outreach to black voters, making the case to oppose these anti-gay amendments, would have been a priority for LGBT political organizers this year. It wasn't, perhaps because mostly white LGBT activists are told they have no business telling blacks how to vote, and they believe it.

Of course, this might have helped.

More Still. The Obama-quoting pro Prop 8 robocall. This deserves much more attention, but that wouldn't serve the Obamist cause, would it.

Try a Little Learning

info@indegayforum.org (Jonathan Rauch) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Jonathan Rauch

Digesting the bitter Prop 8 news, I'm disappointed and sad to have lost gay marriage in California. The adoption of a constitutional ban there has set back the cause by years. What's more frustrating, though, is what I'm hearing from people on our side. "This just shows why civil rights shouldn't be put up for a vote." Or: "We lost this one, but there are other courts to try." To me this translates as: "We're determined not to learn from defeat."

Not just one defeat. On gay marriage, we're now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans. Think about that. Has any other political movement in the history of the United States compiled such an unblemished record of total electoral annihilation? An introspective movement should be doing some fundamental rethinking at this point.

My suggestion: Rethink, first, the wisdom of mindlessly pushing lawsuits through the courts without adequately preparing the public. The result is gay marriage in two states—one of which, Connecticut, would soon have had it anyway—at the cost of a backlash which has made the climb much steeper in dozens of other states, and which, in some states, has banned even civil unions. The California debacle is particularly stinging. We already had civil unions there, and we were only one Democratic governor away from seeing those converted legislatively, hence less controversially, to marriages. First rule of politics: if you're winning anyway, don't kick it away.

Rethink, second, the strategy of telling the public that we're entitled to marriage by right and that anyone who disagrees is a discriminator or, by implication, a bigot. Some portion of the public, let's call it a third, agrees with that proposition, but a third isn't enough. As Dale Carpenter points out, another, let's say, third loaths homosexuality, but they're not winnable. The key is the middle group, people who oppose anti-gay discrimination but see gender as part of the definition of marriage, not as a discriminatory detail. We're going to have to persuade these people that gay marriage is a good idea. We're going to have to talk about gay marriage instead of changing the subject to discrimination. Bludgeoning them with civil-rights rhetoric isn't going to work. Not if it failed in the country's bluest state in a bright-blue year.

The gay marriage issue is not going to be decided over the heads of the American people, and no amount of comparing it to Brown vs. Board of Education or any other dubiously relevant precedent will change that. Too many gay heads are too strategically locked into a litigation-based mindset that has become counterproductive. Too many people forget that Martin Luther King was a persuader, not a litigator, and that the real breakthroughs came through Congress, not courts.

Addendum: A useful emendation here. In a perverse way, it cheers me up a bit to know that, pre-Prop 8, California was not as close to SSM as I thought.

More: A silver lining in Arizona, courtesy of commenter Throbert...

Marriage Bans Win in Florida, Arizona; Marriage Rolled Back in California

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Updated Nov. 7

The get out the vote for Obama campaign, to which the LGBT beltway bandits contributed mightily, achieved its goal of bringing out record numbers of black and Hispanic voters, who heavily supported the anti-gay marriage amendments that will constitutionally bar same-sex marriages in Florida and Arizona (and, even worse, roll back marriage equality in a state where it now exists, California. Also, Arkansas voters banned gay couples from adopting children.

From Reuters, California Stops Gay Marriage Amid Obama Victory. That state's anti-gay marriage Prop 8 passed with exit polls showing 51% of whites opposing the amendment but 70% of African-Americans supporting it, and 75% of African-American women voting to ban our marriages. But what price is losing marriage equality when we now have the light bearer to reign over us?

In early October, we posted one volunteer's warning cry:

"Being behind in the polls wasn't inevitable—we were ahead for a long time—but now...their side has out fund-raised us by $10 million. ...

"Gays have a third choice in 2008; say to hell with the presidential election—Obama is no savior for the gays, and McCain no threat—and get 100% behind the No on 8 campaign. But no—our national organizations had to pretend the presidential election mattered for us this year, and for that, we might just all pay dearly, for a long time to come.

Then, on the eve of the election, Obama reiterated that " 'marriage is between a man and a woman." Yes, he said he was against Prop 8 and amending state constitutions, but everything else he said could have been used in a pro-Prop 8 ad. [update: And it was! A pro-prop 8 robocall used Obama's anti-gay marriage remarks.] The message wasn't lost on the faithful. And, of course, Obama had previously explained that only male-female marriage is a divinely ordained sacred union to be enshrined by law.

Don't expect Obama or the Democratic congress to take steps to modify much less revoke the odious Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act. The LGBT Obamist cadres will be explaining shortly that such a move wouldn't be expedient, after all, in terms of the greater goal of enacting their sweepingly "progressive" redistributionist agenda.

More. McCain received an historic 27% of the self-identified gay vote, according to CNN's exit poll. But to the LGBT media, we're virtually invisible. And as far as the beltway bandits at Human Rights Campaign are concerned, we don't exist.

But what if the money HRC raised to get out the vote for Obama and help secure their own sinecures in the Obama bureaucracies had gone to fighting these initiatives instead?

The Forthcoming Rude Awakening

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

by Stephen H. Miller

Let the celebrations begin. And through inauguration and the "first 100 days" enthusiasm will be high, and LGBT Democratic activists will tell us that a new dawn is upon us, led by the one for whom we have been waiting and his chosen party. They will be insufferable.

But sometime early in 2009, the country will come to some inconvenient truths, as will gay voters. Obama has pledged to introduce legislation that attempts to provide tax credits to all earning less than $250,000 while simultaneously using the federal troth to send checks to those who don't pay income taxes, while also providing subsidized health care and college tuition, plus trillions more in new pork-barrel spending to fulfill the promises Obama has made unto the masses.

The struggling economy won't react well to raising capital gains and dividends taxes as a matter of "fairness," and hugely increasing income and social security taxes on "the rich," along with the many regulatory overreach steps that the Democrats will quickly pass. Add to the mix anti-trade protectionism, the rapid elimination of secret ballots for union elections, and unleashing the trial lawyers to bring suit against corporate America without even modest restraints (the new "pay equity" act will allow the plaintiffs' bar to reach back over 20 years to find discrimination and sue sue sue). Growth will stagnate, unemployment will rise, incomes will fall, and Obama and congressional Democrats will only be able to blame the Bush administration for so long, though they will try mightily.

On foreign policy, let's take Joe Biden at his word and expect the worst.

On the LGBT front, some Obama loyalists at the Human Rights Campaign and elsewhere will be awarded mid-level positions in Washington's alphabet bureaucracies. They will use these posts to defend Obama from critiques that he is not delivering on his promises to the LGBT community, much as Clinton's LGBT appointments defended his support of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

There will be quick passage of a "hate crimes" bill federalizing prosecution of crimes committed with animus against select Democratic-voting constituencies. There will be the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which even John McCain said he was willing to consider signing. It will not, however, include a "GENDA" component that prohibits employers from discriminating against crossdressers -- and that will split LGBT activists who have made the "T" a litmus test for progressivism (think National Gay & Lesbian Task Force) from the LGBT Obamist apologists (think Human Rights Campaign). It won't be pretty. And if the intramural fighting gets ugly enough, there won't be any ENDA at all.

Don't look for action on the military gay ban, either. Obama has said (though the LGBT press passed over it) that he's going to go slow and rely on the military's advice here. Gen. Colin Powell, newly minted Obamist and one of the fathers (with former Sen. Sam Nunn) of "don't ask, don't tell" (i.e., "lie and hide") will provide him with cover.

The Democrats will control all the reins for two years. As their mask of moderation falls away and their contradictory promises work out in favor of traditional big government, big labor, anti-growth statism, support will wither. They will loss Congress in 2010.

GOP at the Crossroads

The Republican party has a choice. If John McCain turns out to be the last GOP presidential nominee willing to forsake gay bashing and oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban marriage for committed, loving same-sex couples, then the party will tread backwards. And if our only choice in the years to come is between a redistributionist regulatory state and reactionary social conservatism, America's future will be bleak.

(I've bumped up into a new post my observations on the win for state marriage bans that had been here.)

A Christianist Theocrat?

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EDT

by Stephen H. Miller

Via the New York Times:

Several gay friends and wealthy gay donors to Senator Barack Obama have asked him over the years why, as a matter of logic and fairness, he opposes same-sex marriage even though he has condemned old miscegenation laws that would have barred his black father from marrying his white mother.

The difference, Mr. Obama has told them, is religion.

As a Christian — he is a member of the United Church of Christ — Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively.

Comments "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds: "My guess is that the reason he's not getting more flak on this is that lots of people who'd be upset by it just don't believe him. What will they say if it turns out he's telling the truth?"

More. Or just a socialist?

Furthermore. Apparently, only the anti-gay marriage side in California is willing to run an ad featuring a (supposed) gay couple at home with their child, in What Is Marriage For? Given his clear public statements that only man-woman marriage is a sacred union, how could Obama possibly disagree with this message?

Beyond the Beltway, Again

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EDT

by Stephen H. Miller

GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is no supporter of gay equality, although he's not been an anti-gay demagogue, either. But a radio ad attacking McConnell, by AFSCME, the government-workers union, traffics in nasty homophobic innuendo in order to help elect his Democratic opponent.

Bait and Switch Time, Again

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

by Stephen H. Miller

In the wake of Michigan's passage of an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, John Corvino wrote:

It was a classic bait-and-switch. When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan’s constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also “similar union[s] for any purpose,” they told us that the amendment was not about taking away employment benefits. They told us that in their speeches. They told us that in their campaign literature. They told us that in their commercials.

They lied.

The initiative passed, the constitution was amended, and before the ink was dry the opponents changed their tune and demanded that municipalities and state universities revoke health-insurance benefits for same-sex domestic partners.

A similar scenario is being played out, now, in Florida. The Sunshine State's Amendment 2 appears on the state ballot as follows:

“This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” (emphasis added)

Supporters of Amendment 2 are claiming no existing rights will be taken away:

Amendment 2 does nothing new. It merely protects something longstanding, something precious, something beautiful — natural marriage between a man and a woman.

But, as we know from Michigan, that's not what they'll be saying the day after the amendment passes. And, while unlike California, the Florida amendment requires 60 percent of the vote to enshrine anti-gay animus in the state constitution, defeating it remains an uphill battle.

Where's Obama? The Washington Blade takes note of Obama's silence on California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, and as we've pointed out, observes that:

...black support for Prop 8 could be the key to its approval. A new poll conducted by SurveyUSA shows overwhelming black support for Prop 8. Likely black voters favor it, 58-38 percent. That’s a daunting and disappointing margin, especially considering black turnout is expected to be at record-breaking levels thanks to Obama's historic candidacy.

Likewise, in Florida (which, unlike California, is very much a swing state up for grabs), the Obama campaign is making registration of Caribbean-Americans and Democratic-leaning Hispanics (of which there are a growing number) a key priority. These groups are heavily anti-gay, and anti-gay marriage. Let us applaud the self-sacrifice being made by LBGT organizations, whose donations to the Democrats' "get out the vote" efforts may elect Obama, even if it means passing anti-gay state consitutional amendments.

Bait and switch, anyone?

Beyond Washington

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

by Stephen H. Miller

In the close Mississippi race for Trent Lott's Senate seat, Republican Roger Wicker ran this ad accusing Democrat Ronnie Musgrove of taking money from "the largest gay rights group in the country," as well as from pro-choice groups and other liberal lobbies. However, the Advocate looked into the matter and reports:

...the [Human Rights Campaign and other mentioned] political action committees have never sent money directly to Musgrove, according to the candidate's Federal Election Commission disclosure report. And...neither NARAL, HRC, nor Friends of Hillary have endorsed Musgrove, whom the blog Talking Points Memo describes as being a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.

So Republican Wicker is pretty scummy. But as Radley Balko, at Reason magazine's Hit and Run, blogs, Musgrove is not someone to cheer, either:

Democrat Ronnie Musgrove promptly denounced the ad, though not because of the ridiculous gay stereotypes. Rather, he wants to assure the voters of Mississippi that he dislikes those gays as much as anyone. From his campaign's press release:

"In March 2000, Musgrove supported a ban on adoption by homosexuals or same-sex couples. The ban not only pertained to adoptions in Mississippi, but also ensured that Mississippi would not recognize adoptions by gay individuals or couples from other states if the parents moved to Mississippi."

Musgrove pledges to not only stop Mississippi from recognizing gay adoptions, but to see to it that if gay couples arrive in his state with their adopted kids, Mississippi won't recognize any parental relationship.

Despite the real progress that's been made in much of America, our advances are still subject to setbacks (after November, gay marriage may no longer be legal in California). Even worse, there are regions where, as far as the treatment of gay people is concerned, it's still 1950.

Culture War Boycotts, for Fun and Profit

info@indegayforum.org (Stephen H. Miller) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

by Stephen H. Miller

The Washington Post's "On Faith" forum looks at anti- and pro-gay rights boycotts. Note that the initial post claims a McDonald's caved-in to the religious right, but that a commenter who called the McCorp HQ got a very different response.

I think it all goes to show that, these days, boycotts are basically a fund-raising tactic by both sides, directed more at their members/donors than anyone else. They almost never (or, make that just "never") have any real economic impact. Sometimes a corporation will initially get scared and announce a retreat, only to then receive a barrage of complaints and boycott threats from the other side. By now, U.S. businesses have basically figured this out.

But the whole game does give the boycotters (on both sides) the emotional satisfaction of believing that they are following in the footsteps of Gandhi and King.