Independent Gay Forum -
script
The Independent Gay Forum
Site Search
Donate Now
Contact
Subscribe
Please help support the Independent Gay Forum this holiday season... Donate Here
Home
About Us
Authors
Topics
CultureWatch
Subscribe
Support IGF
Contact Us
Upcoming Events
John Corvino on TourCatch IGF contributor John Corvino as he travels the country to speak and debate on gays, marriage, and God. Check school websites for time and room information.
para; Mar. 2: Missouri State University (Springfield), debate with Glenn Stanton on the existence of God
para; Mar. 4: DePauw University, quot;Homosexuality and Morality quot;
para; Mar. 9: St. Olaf College, marriage debate with Glenn Stanton
para; Mar. 10: University of Lethbridge (AB, Canada), quot;Homosexuality and Morality quot;
para; Mar. 30: Millersville University (PA), marriage debate with Glenn Stanton
para; Mar. 31: University of Detroit-Mercy Law School, marriage debate with Jeffrey Ventrella of the Alliance Defense Fund
para; Apr. 6: Drake University (IA), quot;Homosexuality and Morality quot;
para; Apr. 8: NE Pennsylvania Diversity Education Consortium (Wilkes-Barre), workshop
para; Apr. 9: Delaware County Community College (PA), quot;Homosexuality and Morality quot;
para; Apr. 13: Univ. of WI-Platteville, debate with Glenn Stanton on the existence of God
para; Apr. 20: Wright State University (OH), quot;Homosexuality and Morality quot;
para; Apr. 22: University of Dayton, quot;Homosexuality and Morality quot;
Worth Watching...For a logical, funny, and compassionate demolition of the anti-gay agenda, check out IGF contributor John Corvino's new DVD, quot;What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality? quot;
Our Facebook PageNetwork with IGF on Facebook.
What's New?
Borders and Closets
by John Corvino | March 15, 2010
It is important for gays to be open about their sexuality, even — perhaps especially — when facing intimidating public officials. [read article]
What rsquo;s Love Got to Do With It?
by John Corvino | March 1, 2010
The claim that marriage must either be about love between adults or the care of children is, of course, a false dilemma. [read article]
Gays Without Borders
by Jennifer Vanasco | February 24, 2010
Anti-gay Christians are doing aggressive missionary work in Africa. There’s no reason gays can’t respond in kind. [read article]
What Marriage Is
by John Corvino | February 21, 2010
Marriage can’t be too small to include gays while also being large enough to do all that society expects of it. [read article]
The Judge is Gay. So What?
by Jennifer Vanasco | February 17, 2010
Homosexuality is not a bias, which is why Vaughn Walker can be as fair as any straight judge in the federal gay-marriage case. [read article]
Refining #151;Not Redefining
by John Corvino | February 15, 2010
There’s even less than meets the eye to claims that same-sex matrimony defines marriage out of existence. [read article]
The Spiral of Progress
by Jennifer Vanasco | February 10, 2010
Advances in the big, politically charged gay-rights battles aren’t so much making progress as reflecting it. [read article]
Brian Brown rsquo;s Bad Logic
by John Corvino | February 9, 2010
There is nothing ‘rational’ about the claim that if having married biological parents helps kids, allowing gay marriage would harm them. [read article]
lsquo;Raw Sex rsquo; and Rev. Evans
by Richard J. Rosendall | February 1, 2010
Some opponents of gay marriage are really just obsessed with gay sex, as a recent fracas in the District of Columbia shows. [read article]
Crying Fowl about Marriage
by John Corvino | January 31, 2010
Opponents say calling gay couples married is like calling a duck a chicken. But the definition of marriage is man-made and can change. [read article]
Case Closed
by Jennifer Vanasco | January 29, 2010
Forced to present actual arguments against gay marriage, the defendants in the Prop 8 lawsuit came up with…nothing. [read article]
It rsquo;s Not Abortion, Stupid
by Jennifer Vanasco | January 20, 2010
A Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage would not be as polarizing as the Roe v. Wade decision. [read article]
Aid laced with poison
by Richard J. Rosendall | January 19, 2010
Because aid dollars continue to flow unabated, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the persecution of homosexuals in Uganda. [read article]
Violent Distortions
by John Corvino | January 13, 2010
For anti-gay obsessives, equating homosexuality with sexual violence is not just a misunderstanding — it’s a strategy. [read article]
The Pleasures of Aging
by Paul Varnell | January 3, 2010
As gay culture matures, it needs to appreciate the many ways in which getting older makes us better. [read article]
The Year of Going Mainstream
by Jonathan Rauch | December 28, 2009
Despite some discouraging setbacks, after 2009 gay marriage will never again be seen as a fringe or radical cause.
[read article]
Subscriptions
Missing out on the newest IGF articles and CultureWatch posts? Keep track using our RSS/Atom feeds and e-mail updates. You'll never skip a beat.
RSS Feed for IGF Articles
RSS Feed for CultureWatch Articles
a
The Day Gay Rights Died
by Dale Carpenter
Posted on March 22, 2010
Mark the date March 21, 2010, on your calendar. That rsquo;s the day the great Obama health-care reform finally passed Congress. It rsquo;s also the day that any realistic hope of passing significant gay-rights measures at the federal level died until at least 2013.
President Obama showed what a determined Democratic president and large congressional majority could do in the face of unified political opposition, powerful interests standing in the way, and the mobilization of the most energized and angry portion of the American public. When a president cares about something ndash; really cares about it ndash; he uses the bully pulpit in tandem with the political muscle and control of legislative procedure that a congressional majority gives him and he gets it done. That rsquo;s what presidential leadership looks like.
But the fact is, the Democrats have now spent whatever political capital they had remaining for the passage of unpopular liberal-identified causes. They have called in all their chits. They have pulled out all the stops. Use whatever hackneyed phrase you like, but it all comes to this: They are done.
All of the liberal constituencies that make up the Democratic Party ndash; environmentalists, gun-control enthusiasts, abortion-rights advocates, financial-reform supporters, and yes, gay-rights activists ndash; will now be told that the urgent necessity is to focus on the fall election and that, for now at least, their pet causes must be subordinated to that larger goal. So sorry.
It rsquo;s not as if gay-rights measures were headed anywhere fast before yesterday. Nobody is talking about repealing any part of the Defense of Marriage Act these days. Remember the president running on that?
Repealing quot;Don rsquo;t Ask, Don rsquo;t Tell quot; has been put off for at least a year and the White House is in no mood to have it brought up before then. Fat chance getting it done after November.
Even the most innocuous and politically popular measure that even pre-election Obama skeptics like me thought would happen, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, has been delayed time after time. It rsquo;s not clear it can pass the House with quot;gender identity quot; included, which gay groups are once again insisting upon. It rsquo;s even more doubtful that supporters can round up 60 votes in the Senate for it, with or without protection for transgendered people.
After the November election, all of this legislation now on life support ndash; to the extent it has any life left at all ndash; will have the feeding tubes pulled out and the respirator turned off. The urgent necessity then, we will be told, is re-electing the president.
Then, in 2013, if he is re-elected, and if he has sufficiently large majorities in Congress, we get to start the cycle again.
UPDATE: A reader emphasizes a reasonable point: it's not as if the Democrats were making gay-rights measures a priority before health-reform passed, so what difference has passage made? The difference, I think, is that without this signature accomplishment the president and Congress would feel somewhat greater pressure to do something for various constituencies. Now they can say: quot;We've accomplished the liberal dream of the past century. Leave us alone until after the next election. quot;p
Permalink | 52 Comment(s)
Less Than Equal, Again
by Stephen H. Miller
Posted on March 20, 2010
The original House-passed health care bill contained a provision extending to domestic partners the same tax exclusion on the value of employer-provided health benefits that spouses of employees receive. That was a major step forward mdash;the taxes paid by domestic partners but not spouses for quot;family coverage quot; are huge.
The Senate dropped the tax-equalizing provision entirely in its version of the health care bill, although at the same time it loosened the language restricting government funding of abortion. Score: One for the pro-choice/abortion lobby, zero for gays.
The new reconciliation bill negotiated by Obama with House and Senate Democratic leaders (intended to be passed after the House's passage of the Senate bill) keeps the Senate's less-restrictive abortion-funding language but doesn't put back in the House's provision equalizing the tax treatment of health benefits for domestic partners. Score: Two for the pro-choice/abortion lobby, zero for gays.
The choice/abortion lobby knows how to play hardball. The LGBT Democratic party fundraisers know how to applaud and swoon.
More. The health care bill says that employers must allow adult children of workers to stay on their parent's plan up to age 26. The reconciliation measure clarifies that this is on a tax-free basis, so employer's don't have to input the value of the benefit as income to be taxed mdash; as they will still have to do for domestic partners. So the Democrats expanded the universe of untaxed benefits for some family members and left us out, again.
If the Human Rights Campaign's claim that it pushed for untaxed DP benefits is true, I can only say that doing so while cheering the president and providing unconditional support to the party is a deeply flawed strategy.
Furthermore. I'm reminded that it's not just same-sex domestic partners that remain excluded; it's same-sex spouses as well! LCR has more, here.p
Permalink | 25 Comment(s)
Not Betraying Us
by Stephen H. Miller
Posted on March 18, 2010
General Petraeus' statement this week on DADT:
quot;I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don rsquo;t Ask, Don rsquo;t Tell. I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative manner that should include the conduct of the review that Secretary Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on the change of policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, moral and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those polices as well. rdquo;
Anti-gay social conservatives will be contacting Moveon.org to see if it has any of those General Betray Us posters left over.p
Permalink | 9 Comment(s)
Sacred Hearts
by David Link
Posted on March 16, 2010
There were many questions and much speculation (particularly in the Comments to my post) about the underlying facts related to the Catholic School in Boulder that expelled the children of a lesbian couple.
That couple has issued a statement anonymously (to protect their children's privacy). It lays out the facts clearly, concisely and with a cool passion I can only admire. If there's any better commentary on this situation, I can't imagine what it would sound like. If this case has caught your attention at all, their words are a must-read.
I titled my post quot;Suffer the Children, quot; but I am happy to take it back. These children have got a couple of the best parents in the world, and while their church is doing everything it can to undermine these women's amazing parental skills, any suffering the church may be causing to the kids is more than compensated for by God's gift of their moms.
(H/T to Towleroad)p
Permalink | 43 Comment(s)
Abortion and Gay Equality: Not Joined at the Hip
by Stephen H. Miller
Posted on March 13, 2010
Writing in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson observes:
Just 20 years ago, opposition to abortion and opposition to homosexual rights seemed to overlap entirely. They appeared to be expressions of the same traditionalist moral framework, destined to succeed or fail together as twin pillars of the culture war.
But in the years since, the fortunes of these two social stands have dramatically diverged. A May 2009 Gallup poll found that more Americans, for the first time, describe themselves as quot;pro-life quot; than quot;pro-choice. quot; A February CNN-Time poll found that half of Americans, for the first time, believe that homosexuality is quot;not a moral issue. quot; This divergence says something about successful social movements in America.
He goes on to note that:
...a generation of thoughtful gay rights advocates, exemplified by Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal, has made the argument for joining traditional institutions instead of smashing them. More radical activists have criticized this approach as assimilationist and bourgeois. But only bourgeois arguments triumph in America. And many have found this more conservative argument for gay rights mdash;encouraging homosexual commitment through traditional institutions mdash;less threatening than moral anarchism.
That speaks to the advancement of gay marriage and other quot;assimilationist quot; goals once virulently denounced by quot;progressive quot; gays as quot;rightwing. quot; But going back to Gerson's initial point about abortion, many leading gay political groups still maintain a pro-abortion-on-demand litmus test for candidates they'll endorse, including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. This effectively eliminates many Republican gays mdash;and gay-supportive but pro-life Republicans (and a few Democrats) mdash;from ever being backed by these officially nonpartisan LGBT groups.
More. Another sign of the times. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican and long-time social conservative, unexpectedly issued a directive barring discrimination against gay state workers. As the Christian Science Monitor reports:
By making that move, the governor quot;is now projecting the image of reasonableness and inclusiveness, quot; says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia rsquo;s Center for Politics. quot;This is not going over with the hardcore right-wing elements in the party, but it is a necessity for governing and it tells you where our society has gone. McDonnell has recognized a reality. quot;
Small steps forward are still steps forward, and we'll only fully gain equality under the law when anti-gay stances are anathema among both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.p
Permalink | 63 Comment(s)
Suffer the Children
by David Link
Posted on March 13, 2010
Bill O rsquo;Reilly is quite right. ldquo;Something doesn rsquo;t sit right here. rdquo; There rsquo;s a big chasm between the reasons offered by Sacred Heart of Jesus School for expelling the children of lesbian parents and the consistent application of those reasons to anyone other than homosexuals.
The Catholic school did not remove these children because they were homosexual, but because their parents were. The eager but nonpersuasive priest O rsquo;Reilly interviewed gave this woolly but absolute reason for the decision: ldquo;a religious institution [must be] able to preserve its identity on fundamental issues. rdquo;
I certainly couldn rsquo;t argue with that, nor could O rsquo;Reilly. But what is that supposed to mean?
And that rsquo;s where O rsquo;Reilly zeroed in. What about divorced parents? Or adulterous ones? Is the archdiocese as zealous in preserving its identity on those fundamental issues as well?
I can speak to this from personal experience. My parents needed to use contraception for medical reasons after the birth of my younger sister, and were prohibited for many years from attending mass (they would drop my sister and I off at church and pick us up afterward; eventually they found a more understanding priest). My sister is divorced and remarried. I am gay.
My family, then, provides a trifecta of Catholic sins. Yet the church is not engaged in any active campaign to prohibit contraception or divorce; just same-sex marriage. I am not aware of any diocese that is prohibiting the children of divorced and remarried parents, or those who use contraception from enrolling their children in Catholic schools, and the priest here does not even attempt to engage O rsquo;Reilly on that issue ndash; he simply reverts, again and again, to the general principle, which he wields to defend the church rsquo;s fundamental identity as anti-gay but not anti-contraception or divorce.
I wondered whether the church had eased up on contraception and remarriage. Perhaps those are no longer ldquo;fundamental rdquo; parts of the church rsquo;s identity. I rsquo;ve seen ads and signs for Catholics Come Home, which is calling ex-Catholics to return to the church, and went to their website.
Both divorce and contraception have their own specific pages, and if the church has changed its position on either since I was a member, you couldn rsquo;t tell from this site. Divorce is still prohibited; however, it looks like the church may be a bit more generous these days in handing out annulments ( ldquo;it rsquo;s not scary rdquo;) to pave the way for remarriages.
Contraception is still banned, though, as well as any infertility treatments. The page specifically says ldquo;these issues are a big deal. rdquo; So where is the enforcement effort to maintain the church rsquo;s fundamental identity on contraception? The U.S. Catholic Bishops, themselves, estimate that about 96% of married American Catholic couples use birth control.
The numbers speak for themselves. No rational institution is ever going to try and enforce a rule it knows 96% of its members violate. It rsquo;s far easier to take a hard line against a group that is smaller ndash; say 3-5%.
This is how the Catholic church has lost its credibility. Its survival takes precedence over its coherence. What moral principle is at stake in bullying a tiny minority when the sins of the majority are accepted in the normal course of business? O rsquo;Reilly wants to hold the church to a higher standard, to some level of consistency. But over and over, the Catholic church proves its anti-sexual posturing goes only as far as homosexuality.
Only heterosexual Catholics can call the church on its hypocrisy. The question is why would they? O'Reilly suggests they might do it out of principle. I applaud him on this. That would be a principle worth standing up for.p
Permalink | 22 Comment(s)
More in CultureWatch raquo;