Politically Correct?

GLBT Week in Review, May 16
BY ANN ROSTOW


Politically Correct?

I never thought I’d see the day that I would shrug off news coverage of marriage equality with an attitude of  “yeah yeah whatever,” but last week it happened! My favorite subject, once ridiculed, then marginalized, and later compartmentalized into a gay issue, has become the conversation du jour—dominating the media for a solid week. 

Back and forth the pundits went, speculating on whether or not President Obama’s newly articulated support for equality will help or hinder him on the campaign trail. Typically, the TV hosts found a spokesperson for each side of the fence. And while normally I’d call that a cop out, in this case the often disingenuous “search for balance” is justified. We simply don’t know how Obama’s marriage position will play out among voters.

I was one of those GLBT journalists who thought the President could easily keep his true convictions in the closet until after November. Why take the risk? First, he has our community’s votes already. Second, everyone knows he backs same-sex marriage anyway. And finally, just over a tenth of the electorate consists of Independents who oppose same-sex marriage rights. Put enough of those swing voters in swing states and they might turn the election. 

But Obama’s courage has put me to shame. And since he and his advisors are presumably sharp strategists, I can only hope that they agree that the President will improve his chances by making a strong stand. Indeed, with our community putting on the pressure, Obama could have looked calculating had he ducked the issue for the next six months.

Here’s the most important result of last week’s decision. The question of marriage equality has evolved, if you will, from a fight between GLBT activists and the religious right, into a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans. 

With the exception of Democratic candidates in red or purple states, major Party leaders (including Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer) have fallen into line behind the President, and the Party platform is now likely to include a marriage equality plank. Other Democrats, who have been struggling to walk a fine line between “equal rights for all” and “the right to marry,” will now find it much easier to join Obama on the solid ground of marriage equality. 
--


And The Survey Says?

One thing that has struck me over the last week is the incoherence of national polling on marriage equality. Haven’t you noticed? Every survey spins out a different message. Only 38 percent back marriage equality in one poll. But it’s 51 percent in the next one. 

Much of the confusion reflects different questions and it’s clear that some respondents keep their true feelings to themselves. Witness the 61-39 antigay vote in North Carolina, where polls told us that a majority supported either marriage or civil unions. Um, either those polls were a bunch of hooey, the voters didn’t understand the amendment, or the famous Bradley effect went viral throughout the state.

The Bradley effect, by the way, is the aforementioned tendency for people to give politically correct answers to pollsters before going right ahead and making a bigoted vote as was seemingly the case in the 1982 California governor’s race between Tom Bradley and George Deukmejian. Interestingly, Deukmejian was closing the gap as the election approached, so the polling may not have been as anomalous as it seemed at the time. Nevertheless, the phenomenon is a constant in gay elections and the “Bradley” moniker has stuck, rightly or wrongly.  

Whether the polls are accurate or not, the trend in our favor is indisputable, as is the demographic shift that shows younger voters entering the electorate on our side as older voters take their antigay views to the Great Beyond. These numbers led George W Bush’s former pollster Jan van Lohuizen to dash off a memo to Republican candidates last week, warning them to put on the kid gloves when discussing marriage rights.
--

Newport News

In other exciting developments, Colorado Republicans managed to kill a civil unions bill that would have won had it been given a vote. And Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chaffee invited marriage equality into the Yacht Club State through the back door by signing an executive order recognizing same-sex marriages. 

Yes, we’re still on that subject. 

In 2007, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch issued an opinion (much like Eliot Spitzer did in New York back in the day) interpreting state law to mandate marriage recognition for gay couples. You may not be able to marry in Rhode Island. But hop over the border to Massachusetts or Connecticut and presto! You’re married in Rhode Island. Sort of. 

Now, Governor Chaffee’s order means that state agencies have a clear directive to treat married gay couples the same as straight ones. It’s not as satisfying as legalizing marriage, but it’s not chopped liver.

What’s wrong with chopped liver anyway? A bit of research suggests that the dish became a pejorative a) because people don’t like it, or b) because it’s a side dish. 

Well it can’t be the second option, otherwise we’d be able to say things like: “What am I? Cole slaw?” And the first option doesn’t make much sense either, does it? I mean “chopped liver” isn’t universally disliked. Why not: “What am I? Okra?”  That would work on both counts, a slimy, tasteless and generally disgusting side dish.

 I also learned that “schmaltz” actually means “fat,” usually duck fat or chicken fat (used for preparing chopped liver). Hmmm. We’ll have to think about that one--- on several levels.
--


Who Moved My Meat Thermometer?

After several hours of squinting at my dark computer screen, I just found a button (F2) that backlit the display. Who knew? I really hate becoming a technological imbecile, particularly considering the fact that I began my career on the cutting edge of the information industry, working for an online money market news and data company in the late 1970s. (We called it a “computerized information system” and it ran through dedicated phone lines.) 

Don’t worry. I have no intention of rambling down memory lane. That said, I am not really in the mood for my gay news agenda, which includes the ins and outs of two pending bills in the House, more blather (from me) on marriage equality, a return to the Connecticut Supreme Court decision on workplace discrimination that I skipped over last week, and the Virginia legislature’s decision to reject a very qualified gay judicial nominee because he has publicly advocated an end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Sounds like a hard slog, doesn’t it? 

I’m also hungry, so I took time out to scavenge in the kitchen. There, I found a pack of ravioli in the refrigerator that says: “use or freeze by April 27.” Ooops. Being the sort of person who eats things off the floor, when appropriate, I decided to prepare the aging pasta. I dutifully proceeded to read the directions, which suggested that the ravioli be boiled three or four minutes, or to “an internal temperature of 165 degrees.”

What’s wrong with these people? I’m speaking of the people who write inane things on packaging, like “not for human consumption” on cans of motor oil. How can someone measure the internal temperature of a ravioli? I suppose it’s possible, but who would do so? No one. So why include this useless detail?

For the record, after a time-consuming search I dug out the meat thermometer, and even after six minutes those things were only 140 degrees but I took them off the stove anyway.  I mean, really. It’s not as if they were filled with raw blowfish. They were “five cheese.” 
 --


House Sitting

Moving on, the Obama Administration has issued a statement on the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which has passed the Armed Services Committee and will probably win a floor vote Wednesday evening. 

Among the long list of complaints is the section that would prohibit same-sex weddings on military bases, even in states where marriage is legal. Another section that meets with Obama’s disapproval would allow military authorities to overlook otherwise impermissible personnel actions when based on religious or moral beliefs.

The administration has a host of other problems with the bill, and while no one section would be a deal breaker, Tuesday’s statement threatens a veto unless most of the objections are resolved. You may recall that the antigay stuff was removed from the Senate version of the Defense budget, but it managed to squirm its way back in once it returned to the House. I don’t follow the Hill that closely, but I assume the Senate will block the antigay provisions again. I hope so.

We also have problems with the House version of the Violence Against Women Act, a statute that has been reauthorized without incident for nearly 20 years. Gone now, are protections for Native Americans, immigrants and lesbians, omissions that combined to earn a veto threat from the President.

I gather that the bill’s author has since added back the Native Americans and the immigrants, but refuses to add a provision against sexual orientation discrimination. I can’t remember her name, sorry. But I did hear her explain that there’s no need to make a reference to every group because the bill “covers everyone.” Does that work for you? Why add back two other groups and leave the battered lesbians out in the cold? 

Again, I assume the Senate will fix the problem. They’ve already reauthorized an intact version of the bill. We’ll see, A House vote is also scheduled for Wednesday night.
--


God Help Us

So, in the category of people I don’t know who say mean things about gays, I can now add Manny Pacquiano, a boxer and Filipino politician who I guess I may have vaguely heard of in the past. Mr. Pacquiano recently opined that:

“God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other. It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old.”  

This is why I have long since given up repeating bizarre homophobic quotes. It’s pointless. Pacquino modified his comment, the Washington Post reports, adding that he’s “not against gay people,” but simply believes that “same-sex marriage is against the law of God.” 

But I’m including this item because I’m sick of people getting away with rank bigotry by attaching their political positions to “God,” as if “God” is a specific entity who has set down uncontested rules and regulations for a civil society. All you have to do is toss out the G-word and everyone is obliged to “respect your religious convictions.” Why?

I think that God (if He cared about such things which He doesn’t) would want us to pass the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act. I think He would oppose the Ryan Budget. I think He would call for the development of a European Central Bank with the power to issue bonds and manipulate the Euro, because my God is smart. I think He would let the Bush tax cuts expire. 

But do I go around expressing my views as a function of religious faith? Do I demand some extra measure of deference for these positions based on their theological roots? No, I do not! 

Well, I’m only joking in a sense, because as I mentioned in parentheses, no one can turn a transcendent mystery into a bleak repository of mundane dos and don’ts.  But that’s what our friends on the Christian Right do all the time, not just with gay issues, but with everything. Their “God” wants conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Palestinians out of Jerusalem, an end to the capital gains tax, and the abolition of the Department of Education. Doesn’t their God have anything better to worry about? 

You shouldn’t be able to say that God supports conservative Republicans and then accuse all the Democrats of trampling on your “religious freedom.” But they get away with it time and again. My God is disgusted with all of them. 
--