Independent Gay Forum

Steve Miller's
CultureWatch

August 24, 2004

A Kinder, Gentler Conservatism?

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, "Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." Cheney said:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with. With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage."

Having made it clear he, personally, doesn't support federalizing marriage, as the failed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) sought to do, Cheney went on to provide some cover to President Bush, a strong FMA supporter, remarking:

"I think his [Bush's] perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved. The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."

As the Chronicle notes, Cheney's comments drew a rebuke from the religious right's Family Research Council, while doing little to mollify anti-Bush activists, such as the Human Rights Campaign.

But it's significant, I think, that Cheney's remarks follow on the heels of Bush's own, under-reported statement earlier this month that regarding civil unions, "That's up to states. If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage."

It sure looks like the administration is moderating its stance, trying to recapture some of the gay/gay friendly votes in the all-important swing states. And while it doesn't, and can't, make up for unleashing the FMA in the first place, it's certainly a welcome change of tone -- especially as the Kerry camp moves in the other direction, denouncing gay marriage and backtracking on gays in the military.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/24/2004 09:45:19 PM / Permalink

August 22, 2004

Why Pay for What You Get for Free?

The fight over same-sex marriage has so overwhelmed other gay issues that neither the gay activists' surrender over ENDA nor John Kerry's retreat on gays in the military has gotten much attention. On the latter, the Washington Blade takes a closer look in a report headlined "Kerry hedges on ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Senator expresses concerns over 'unit cohesion' " This puts into context the Kerry campaign's decision earlier this month to delete any reference to ending the gay ban from the candidate's website, wherein all manner of promises are made to groups that Kerry actually thinks he needs to bother with.

The "gay votes for free" card that LGBT politicos and activists gave Kerry will come back to haunt them.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/22/2004 04:00:27 PM / Permalink

No Solidarity: Cherokees Ban Gay Marriage.

The Cherokee National Tribal Council voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, reports the AP. "If we don't address this, we'll have a flood of same-sex marriages," an advocate of the ban asserted, adding that same-sex matrimony would otherwise "be a black eye on the Cherokee Nation. Even the state of Oklahoma doesn't allow same-sex marriage."

Nope, not even gonna attempt to parse those comments. But I did refrain from heading this item "Anti-Gay Cherokees on the Warpath."
--Stephen H. Miller

8/22/2004 03:58:54 PM / Permalink

McGreevey Not Good for Gays

While LGBT activists continue to praise James McGreevey, New Jersey's embattled Democratic governor, despite the mounting evidence of political corruption and charges of sexual harassment, another newly out Garden State official explains why he's ashamed of the state's highest official "gay American." Reports the New Jersey Journal:

Hudson County Freeholder Ray Velazquez is so offended by the governor's handling of his legal troubles and so worried that the gay community will be hurt by the scandal that he is publicly acknowledging that he, too, is a gay elected official. Most troubling, he said, is the allegation that Gov. James E. McGreevey put his lover on the public payroll.
"It's not enough to say, 'I'm sorry, I'm a gay man,' to cover up those things," Velazquez said this week at his Downtown law office. "It sends the wrong message, and as a gay man who has worked his entire life and who feels an obligation to the gay community, I think it's best that he resign his office immediately. Being gay does not give you the right to abuse your public office.

And, writing in the Washington Post, novelist Francine Prose observes:

I keep finding myself more concerned about the $110,000 annual salary that McGreevey paid his lover for a job as a homeland security adviser -- a position for which the aspiring Israeli poet apparently had few qualifications -- than I am about the governor's sexuality, or the fate of his marriage.
And I am left wondering whether the governor may have been trying to use the American obsession with sex and celebrity gossip to his own advantage, hoping perhaps that the sympathy he would gain by declaring his lifelong identity crisis might outweigh the censure over the financial irregularities that were already beginning to blight his record.

No kidding. On the other hand, a letter published in our mailbag takes on McGreevey's critics.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/22/2004 03:56:35 PM / Permalink

August 18, 2004

McGreevey - It Keeps Going, and Going.

The lover's gay; no, he's straight; no, he's gay...It was a feather-bedding quid pro quo; no, it was sexual harassment. What it is, indisputably, is a big juicy mass media sex scandal, generating lots of cheap copy and, here and there, some thoughtful analysis about gays, marriage, and the closet. In addition to Jonathan Rauch's valuable insights, posted herein, Salon has run a clever piece by Dan Savage, who writes:

If it does nothing else, the McGreevey marriage highlights the chief absurdity of the anti-gay-marriage argument: Gay men can, in point of fact, get married — provided we marry women, duped or otherwise. The porousness of the sacred institution is remarkable: Gay people are a threat to marriage, but gay people are encouraged to marry — indeed, we have married, under duress, for centuries, and the religious right would like us to continue to do so today — as long as our marriages are a sham. ...
But how does this state of affairs protect marriage from the homos, I wonder? If an openly gay man can get married as long as his marriage makes a mockery of what is the defining characteristic of modern marriage — romantic love — or if he marries simply because he despairs of finding a same-sex partner, what harm could possibly be done by opening marriage to the gay men who don't want to make a mockery of marriage or who can find a same-sex partner?

Despite the sensationalism, it's possible the McGreevey affair will lead more straight people to think the issue through, and then come to the right conclusion.
-- Stephen H. Miller

Jenna and Barbara Get an Invite.

A New York Daily News gossip item has it that "Bush Gals to See Gay Vows." In other words, the first daughters have reportedly been invited to the same-sex wedding of their beautician and his long time partner (though the marriage won't be recognized by the state, or their father). The item says Jenna and Barbara are ethusiastic about attending, but whether they go or not (and I'm betting NOT, even if the story is legit), it points out how stark the generational contrast is on the issue of gay marriage. The future is ours, but it's not here yet.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/18/2004 09:26:30 PM / Permalink

August 16, 2004

Bye Bye ENDA.

Washington Blade editor Chris Crain takes aim at the Human Rights Campaign and its allies over their decision to oppose any version of the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that doesn't also bar private employers from discriminating against the transgendered as well as gays and lesbians. As Crain notes, "Courts have already ruled that existing federal and state laws that protect against gender bias protect transgendered people. Those rulings aren't universal, but they offer more federal protection than gays currently enjoy."

I'd add that a sweeping federal prohibition against "gender identity and expression" workplace discrimination arguably forces employers to alter dress codes to allow any manner of gender discordant attire (i.e., a bearded man wearing a dress to work). Anyway, that's how it will be perceived, and it will make ENDA unpassable.

I'm no fan of ENDA -- federal anti-discrimination laws have opened the gates to a flood of frivolous lawsuits, forcing employers to pay off plaintiffs because defending themselves is prohibitively expensive. But HRC and liberal-left gays do think ENDA is significant, and they've just made sure they'll never get it.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/16/2004 11:20:34 PM / Permalink

McGreevey's Message on Marriage.

Jonathan Rauch weighs in on the McGreevey affair and what it says about the marriage fight in a Sunday New York Times Op-Ed, no less. He writes:

The gay-marriage debate is often conducted as if the whole issue were providing spousal health insurance and Social Security survivors' benefits for existing same-sex couples. All of that matters, but more important, and often overlooked, is the way in which alienation from marriage twists and damages gay souls. ...
Opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes insist that gays can marry. Marriage, they say, isn't all about sex. It can be about an abstinent, selfless love. Well, as Benjamin Franklin said, where there is marriage without love there will be love without marriage. I'm always startled when some of the same people who say that gays are too promiscuous and irresponsible to marry turn around and urge us into marriages that practically beg to end in adultery and recklessness.

The Human Rights Campaign is praising Democrat McGreevey for showing "enormous courage," despite the growing allegations that the New Jersey governor gave his then-lover a high paying position for which he was unqualified. As gay historian and author Eric Marcus comments in the New York Times:

"I don't think it reflects well on gay people. Here is a man who chose to hide who he was, came out under pressure because he had engaged in an adulterous affair, had given his romantic partner a government job. It's not exactly a moment I think anybody who has been involved in the gay rights movement can take pride in."

Except if you're a Democratic Party front like HRC. The Log Cabin Republicans, while sympathetic to McGreevey's situation, called on him to resign immediately rather than wait until Nov. 15 (which is McGreevey's way of ensuring that his unelected Democrat successor needn't face voters until 2005).

Another result of the McGreevey affair is a spotlight on gay men who marry women but seek out sex with men -- a huge, but under the radar -- phenom. The Washington Post takes a look in a piece titled "Married Men with Another Life to Live".
-- Stephen H. Miller

"That's Great"?

Mostly overlooked in last week's news was President Bush's statement on CNN's Larry King show that, as regards states providing legal recognition to gay couples through civil unions, "That's up to states." Bush added:

"If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage. I don't think our country should."

Let's go over that one more time. A conservative Republican president just said "that's great" about states granting legal protections to gay couples. It doesn't make up for supporting the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's worth some major news coverage, wouldn't you think?

Meanwhile, over at Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson provides an update on one state where the GOP legislature clearly is far to the right of President Bush. In Virginia, there are increasing ramifications from a reprehensible new law banning gays from entering into marriage-like contracts.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/16/2004 12:25:00 AM / Permalink

August 13, 2004

Garden State.

I realize there's lots of gay news, but I'm on the road through the weekend with limited computer time. On L'affaire McGreevey, I'll just allude to the old political saying, "Never get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/13/2004 01:50:30 AM / Permalink

August 10, 2004

Gay Marriage, Conservative Agendas.

Blogger Eric Siddall writes in Memo to the Right: Gay Marriage Promotes Conservative Agenda:

One would think then that the Christian Right would be jumping up in joy for gay marriage. Bring these guys back to tradition and family. After all, aren't the Christian Right constantly saying hate the sin, love the sinner? Well, if the sin is the behavior surrounding the homosexual lifestyle, then what better way to stop gays from going to circuit parties and having sex outside of marriage than to allow them to get married?

Of course, that's exactly why some on the gay left are against same-sex marriage.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/10/2004 11:07:44 PM / Permalink

August 8, 2004

Backtracking on Gays in Military.

Conservative columnist Bob Novak is trying to stir up trouble for John Kerry in his Aug. 7 column when he writes:

John Kerry's official Web site last week deleted his advocacy of homosexuals in the military after the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel reported on this disclosure of the Democratic presidential candidate's position.
Before the language was eliminated, the Web site said bringing gays into the military was one of Sen. Kerry's "priorities." The page on homosexual issues had gone on to say: "John Kerry opposed the Clinton administration's Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. He was one of the few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the president to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members."
Kerry does not mention the issue in his speeches, and the party platform is mute on gays in the military.

Novak is no friend of gays and his motive is to embarrass the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Nevertheless, it's more evidence of Kerry's tendency to buckle under and abandon us at the first sign of opposition. No doubt, he believes he has little to fear by taking the gay vote for granted -- which is largely true, because gay political groups have given him a green light to do just that. But if Kerry doesn't make a case for revoking government discrimination now, he clearly won't be able to claim a mandate to do so once in office.

I'm not suggesting that Bush is "better." But if we want the Democrats to give us something, then gay "leaders" must stop being partisan sycophants and at least hint that the gay vote could stay home on election day (or vote for Nader or the Libertarian candidate).

Fear of losing customers is what motivates good service. The same is true in politics. The religious right understands this, and its leaders constantly tell Karl Rove they'll stay home if Bush takes them for granted. If only gay leaders would show as much spine.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/8/2004 11:15:29 PM / Permalink

August 6, 2004

Big Tents for We, But Not for Thee.

EMILY's List, the powerful women's PAC with an abortion rights agenda, is backing a senatorial candidate who supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, reports the Washington Blade. The Democratic candidate is Inez Tenenbaum, running for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, and EMILY's List has reportedly given her $350,000.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay political fundraiser, has long considered support for abortion a key factor in making endorsements (pro-choice voting is also an important category on HRC's congressional scorecards). Likewise, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund requires candidates it endorses to be pro-choice. In both cases, the abortion litmus test has served to deny these groups' funds to GOP candidates who are gay-supportive but favor some abortion restrictions, such as parental notification.

In another development reported in the Blade, Unity, the umbrella group of minority journalists associations (with a decidedly "progressive" tilt) has again denied a membership request by the National Gay & Lesbian Journalists Association, stating that Unity is intended only for racial/ethnic minorities. Instead, NLGJA has been offered an "unofficial" role.

Says the Blade story, Unity "has decided not to extend the parameters of its big tent past its founding mission," and leaders of NLGJA "have gradually come to accept their second-tier status."

Do I begrudge EMILY's List and Unity the right to limit their agendas and constrain their "parameters"? Not at all. But it does highlight the absurdity foisted on us by LGBT activists who insist that every leftwing cause is part of their mission, so that gay groups involve themselves in everything from supporting race-based preferences (as HRC does) to opposing welfare reform (as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force does). And that's leaving aside the whole issue of transgenderism, which extends to the cause of heterosexual cross-dressers.
-- Stephen H. Miller

At Least Bush Lowered Our Taxes.

Senator John Edwards said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, according to media reports. "We're both opposed to gay marriage," said Edwards.

I'm waiting for gay activists to deliver another of their increasingly absurdist rationales for their support of these two snake-oil salesmen.

If our movement "leaders" would just hint that gay voters might stay home on election day (no one expects them to support Bush), it might be enough to trigger some fealty from the Democrats.
-- Stephen H. Miller

8/6/2004 04:10:09 PM / Permalink

August 5, 2004

It Continues.

On Tuesday, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- the first such test of the issue since a Massachusetts court legalized gay and lesbian weddings last fall. The amendment was approved by 71% of those voting. Next up, voters in some 10 other states will face similar ballot measures in coming months. The prospects aren't good. It may take another generation before voting majorities conclude gay marriage strengthens rather then rips the social fabric.

Meanwhile, in Washington state a King County Superior Court judge ruled that gay couples were entitled to marry. But no marriage licenses can be issued until the state Supreme Court reviews the case. Expect conservatives to charge that an activist judiciary is again overriding the will of the people -- which it may well be, but that's what guaranteeing minorities legal equality is often about.

Nevertheless, if court rulings favoring gay marriage trigger passage of state constitutional amendments that permanently bar same-sex nuptials, we may regret not taking the path of civil unions -- at least as an interim step. But then again, the Massachusetts court's ruling may have made that decision for us.
--Stephen H. Miller

More Recent Postings
8/01/04 - 8/07/04

8/5/2004 12:12:47 AM / Permalink

Search CultureWatch Archives
Write to IGF

HRC and the End of ENDA

The decision by gay activists to oppose the Employee Non-Discrimination Act if it covers sexual orientation, but not transgendered identity and expression, sounds the death knell for this legislation.
By Dale Carpenter - 08-23-04

Republicans Are Forfeiting the Future

Log Cabin Republicans' bid for a “unity plank” in the Republican platform appears destined to fail. The party seems not to understand that its dismissive attitude toward gays cuts it off from the next generation of voters.
By James Kirchick - 08-23-04

Oh, What A Day It Was

On just one August day, three developments of great significance to “gay Americans” occurred, demonstrating the historic and volatile times we're living in.
By Paul Varnell - 08-23-04

Subscribe
Receive our free newsletter via e-mail and stay informed about the site and its authors.

McGreevey's Marriage Problem — and Ours

Governor McGreevey's downfall serves a reminder that marriage isn't just about rights and benefits for gays who are coupled. It's about improving life for everyone who grows up gay.
By Jonathan Rauch - 08-16-04

Four Better Ways
to Defend Marriage

Banning gay marriage, as Missouri's voters recently did, will do nothing to shore up the institution of matrimony. So let's get serious and ban...remarriage. Oh, and divorce. And marriage without children. And....
By Deroy Murdock - 08-11-04

In Boston, the Democrats Ducked

The gay community has asked the Democrats for almost nothing in exchange for our support. As the convention showed, almost nothing is exactly what we can expect to get.
By Dale Carpenter - 08-06-04

Goodbye, Federal Marriage Amendment

The “debate” over the amendment was disappointing since the issues were never joined. Amendment supporters failed to explained how marriage by gays would harm marriage, children or the country. And amendment opponents focused on the lack of a need to amend, rather than arguing the social good of allowing gays to wed.
By Paul Varnell - 07-30-04

No Excuse for Kerry

John Kerry, in ducking the Senate vote over the Federal Marriage Amendment, showed he's willing to bag huge gay campaign contributions but unwilling to spend any political capital on our behalf. So let's have no illusions about the pro-gay dividends of a Kerry administration.
By Dale Carpenter - 07-26-04

Is Homosexuality Harmful —
and So What?

Gay-rights opponents wrongly insist that homosexuality is harmful. Worse, they go on to argue for measures that they would never apply to football players, drivers, and other heterosexuals who court risk.
By John Corvino - 07-05-04

On Gay Marriage, Conservatives Betray Conservatism

In their strident opposition to gay marriage, many on the Right abandon the key principles of modern conservatism: that every individual counts, that outcomes matter as much as intentions, and that risk should be handled rationally.
By Jonathan Rauch - 07-05-04

Reagan and AIDS:
A Reassessment

Ronald Reagan's record regarding AIDS has been greatly distorted by those who would demonize the late president as a "murderer." In contrast to anti-Reagan hyperbole, here are the facts.
By Dale Carpenter - 06-28-04

In Vermont,
Gay Ties Are Binding

The early statistics on Vermont's same-sex civil unions are in. The finding? Gay couples are treating civil union more seriously than straight couples are treating marriage.
By Steve Swayne - 06-28-04

How to Make Pride Matter

The desire to please everyone has reduced gay pride parades to bland themelessness at a time when marriage and other battles remain to be won. Locally relevant messages and a dose of political savvy would put the point back into Pride.
By Paul Varnell - 06-28-04

Gays Abroad Need Our Help

Publicizing and combating anti-gay persecution abroad should be a higher priority for American gays, who could take a cue from the Jewish community.
By James Kirchick - 06-21-04

Virginia's New Jim Crow

Virginia's new law infringing on same-sex couples' ability to draw up care-giving arrangements is a legal denial not just of gay coupledom, but gay personhood.
By Jonathan Rauch - 06-21-04

Reagan and Gays: A Reassessment

Aside from his tolerant personal attitude, Reagan's actual record on civil liberties for gays was surprisingly good.
By Dale Carpenter - 06-14-04

Love Matters

Some conservatives are compelled to demean love between people of the same sex, reducing it to lust or treating it as “narcissistic.” They're wrong. Love does not differ in nature according to the sex of its object or the person who experiences it.
By Paul Varnell - 06-14-04

The Truth about Reagan and AIDS

Hollywood and common wisdom often characterize President Reagan as a homophobe who callously ignored AIDS. The facts say otherwise.
By Deroy Murdock

The End of Gay Rights

With Massachusetts' adoption of same-sex marriage, the American struggle for gay rights enters its final stage. In perhaps 30 years, the need for an organized gay movement in this country will be gone.
By Dale Carpenter - 06-07-04

Michelangelo's Hunks

More than four centuries before Tom of Finland, Michelangelo pioneered the artistic adoration of the muscular male figure. Even today, few fully appreciate his daring.
By Paul Varnell - 06-03-04

Marriage Is Radical Enough

Marriage, simply by becoming a realistic goal and part of the social landscape in which future generations of gay children grow up, will profoundly change their lives for the better. So why are some gay radicals lamenting this as a loss of “freedom”?
By Richard J. Rosendall - 05-31-04

Integration Day

The birth of gay marriage in Massachusetts connects gay partners not just to each other but, in a deeper way, to their families and communities.
By Andrew Sullivan - 05-24-04

Gay Marriages Change Straight Minds

Opponents tried everything to stop gay marriage, and many advocates fear backlash. But the larger fallout of Massachusetts will be not disgust in the straight world but empathy.
By Paul Varnell - 05-24-04

Gay Marriage Is Risky.
But Banning It Is Riskier

After Massachusetts, excluding gay couples is no safe harbor for the institution of marriage. Particularly among young Americans, continuing the ban will put marriage on the road to cultural irrelevance.
By Jonathan Rauch - 05-19-04

The Gay & Lesbian Atlas

A new book analyzing census data shows gay male couples are not only clustered in major cities, but in select districts within those cities, while lesbian couples are more widely dispersed in smaller cities and (often college) towns.
By Paul Varnell - 05-14-04

Guns, Gays, and Propaganda

What message was the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) sending when it issued a statement criticizing the administration on gay marriage, but chock full of denunciations of the NRA and gun ownership? Not one consistent with upholding constitutional principles, that's for sure.
By Paul Varnell - 05-10-04

A Certificate — Not A Ceremony

A former college chaplain argues that what the state does for birth and death it should also do for marriage: merely certify status, and leave the tasks of celebrating and solemnizing to communities and religions.
By Steve Swayne - 05-10-04

Gay Marriage and Polygamy

Gay marriage makes sense because it meets an essential need for the individuals involved and it also benefits society. Polygamy, by contrast, does neither.
By Dale Carpenter - 05-03-04

Higher Learning?
Contradictions of the Academically Alienated

Academic deconstructionists and queer critical theorists teach that the mainstreaming of gays is a bad thing, diminishing our isolation at the cost of activism, and trading away radical “equality” for assimilation. Someone should tell them that being perpetually marginalized isn't what most gays want.
By Paul Varnell - 04-26-04

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

While same-sex marriage is unlikely to increase the numbers of homosexuals, it is likely to increase the levels of happiness — and openness — among existing homosexuals. How could that be a bad thing?
By Dale Carpenter - 04-19-04

Gay Marriage and Children

Same-sex marriage won't take any children away from mothers and fathers who want to raise them. What it will do is provide security for children being raised by same-sex couples.
By Dale Carpenter - 04-05-04

Gay Marriage and Procreation

Many say gay couples shouldn't marry because they can't procreate. But the link between marriage and procreation was severed long ago — and even if it hadn't been, gay couples would deserve the same exception that millions of infertile straight couples receive.
By Dale Carpenter - 03-22-04

Bush's Case for Same-Sex Marriage

In his speech opposing same-sex marriage, President Bush actually made the best arguments for it: healthier families, a more stable society, and the protection of marriage itself.
By Jonathan Rauch - 03-15-04

On Same-Sex Marriage, Bush Failed the Public and Himself

President Bush's support of a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriages amounts to a lack of moral and political vision, of empathy and imagination, that is symptomatic of a larger decline of his presidency.
By Jonathan Rauch - 03-08-04

Against Bush

I've repeatedly defended President Bush in this space. On foreign policy, he has rightly taken the fight to the enemy. On economics, though a profligate spender and inconsistent defender of free trade, he's better than a Democrat would be on both counts. But if an amendment banning gay marriage actually passes, Bush will have done more harm to gay people than any president in our history.
By Dale Carpenter - 03-08-04

Prospects for Gay Marriage

In the long run, anti-gay zealots are fighting a losing war. Whether or not the Federal Marriage Amendment passes, same-sex marriage will eventually be legal. That assessment is based on consideration of the slow but relentless economic and social pressures that underlie politics and public opinion.
By Paul Varnell - 03-08-04

Gay Marriage, Then Polygamy?

Nothing in the principles supporting gay marriage provides any support for the legalization of any other type of relationship, much less polygamy.
By Paul Varnell - 03-05-04

The Case for Federal Civil Unions

Congress could help bank the fires of the culture war over gay marriage by putting a federal civil-unions bill on the table, then handing the issue back to state legislatures. Call it the Vermont Compromise.
By Steve Swayne - 03-03-04

Homosexuality in Leviticus

The Levitical condemnation of male homosexuality has been hugely influential. But its meaning is ambiguous, and it may have applied to a supposed practice — Canaanite religious prostitution — that never occurred at all.
By Paul Varnell - 03-01-04

Read CultureWatch on Your RSS Newsreader
Read Steve Miller's CultureWatch blog with popular RSS newsreader software packages.

National Gay Leaders: Worth the Price?

National gay groups now pay their directors hefty salaries. Their generous paychecks may or many not be warranted. But let's not forget that many state and local groups are needier — and it's on the state level where most gay political issues will ultimately be decided.
By Paul Varnell - 02-23-04

Why the 'M' Word Matters To Me

Civil unions and other separate forms of recognition may provide important benefits, but only marriage can bring the full connection to home and family that gay people — and all people — need.
By Andrew Sullivan - 02-23-04

Time to Draw the Line

Blocking an anti-marriage amendment will be the defining political fight of our lifetimes. Both gay Democrats and gay Republicans must make this unequivocally clear to their respective parties — any candidate who votes for a marriage ban will receive no more support, ever, no matter how accommodating they've been on other issues.
By Dale Carpenter - 02-23-04

The False Debate over 'Activist' Judges

Despite critiques of judicial decisions on gay marriage and other hot-button issues, it isn't always easy to distinguish if judges are simply interpreting the law, or are over-reaching by making law. We can only insist on judges whose work is clear, exacting, and intellectually honest.
By Steve Sanders - 02-11-04

Are Gays Wrecking Marriage in Scandinavia?

Marriage may be eroding in Scandinavia, but, contrary to recent conservative claims, gay marriage isn't the problem. In fact, it's part of the solution.
By Dale Carpenter - 02-11-04

Suffer the Children

A federal court has upheld Florida's ban on all adoptions by gay couples. In order to further the rightwing backlash against gay families, Florida and its governor are happy to leave unadoptable children and their gay foster parents in legal limbo — or to pull asunder long-standing guardianships altogether.
By Jennifer Vanasco - 02-09-04

A Pause in Gay Progress

For college freshmen, favoring gay marriage is now the “middle of the road” position, although the annual growth in pro-gay sentiments has slowed a bit in a year of backlash to gay advances. But overall, today's young adults remain far more supportive of gay legal equality than their elders — a positive social trend that bodes well for the future.
By Paul Varnell - 02-09-04

The Straight Threat to Marriage

Marriage needs protecting, all right — from heterosexuals who don't take it seriously. Why don't gay marriage's critics spend some energy denouncing straights whose behavior undermines traditional marriage?
By Deroy Murdock - 02-02-04

The Good Word about 'The L Word'

Showtime's breakthrough new television series The L Word is changing the way America perceives lesbians — namely, as individuals.
By Jennifer Vanasco - 02-02-04

Anti-Love Isn't Pro-Marriage

It's hard to see how even the religious right can believe that denying marriage to loving gay couples will make uncommitted straight couples — or single straight parents — more likely to marry.
By Paul Varnell - 01-12-04

The Prospects for 2004

Peering at the year ahead, here's a look at some of the likely challenges we'll face. Among these: a presidential election spotlighting where the candidates stand on same-sex marriage.
By Paul Varnell - 01-05-04

Bad Arguments for Gay Marriage

There are many bad arguments used by antigay activists against gay marriage. But we ourselves have also been guilty of making some bad arguments for gay marriage. Here are three.
By Dale Carpenter - 12-24-03

Paul's Letter to the Romans

Paul's claim that homosexual desire and behavior are the result of belief in pagan gods hardly seems applicable to those who haven't rejected an earlier belief in God. Specifically, it hardly applies to homosexuals who are Christians, or Christians who come to realize their homosexuality.
By Paul Varnell - 12-24-03

Ayn Rand and Homosexuality

The highly influential novelist and proponent of radical individualism had a major blind spot — her hostility toward homosexuality. Over time, those inspired by her works, including Rand's gay readers, have had to confront her prejudice.
By Paul Varnell - 12-15-03

Our Struggle for Love

Despite dizzying gay political progress, what we're fighting for is not, at bottom, about politics. It's about love, for ourselves and each other.
By Richard J. Rosendall - 12-08-03

Search the Independent Gay Forum