Just another WordPress site
“If I had to choose between joining a crowd or making a difference, I would choose to make a difference.”
That’s the closing quote in an interesting article on Gay Republicans just published by the Gay & Lesbian Times.
Read the whole article…. it is worth it. One interesting recurrent theme is the overwhelming personal hostility borne by gay Republicans by their own “tolerant” gay community. Thus, the final quote.
I couldn’t agree more.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Just passing along this response I received from Chris Barron at Log Cabin Republicans earlier today. I’d have posted sooner, but I’m on Pacific time… and have been on the floor of the San Diego Convention Center all day. (Feet…hurt….make…pain…stop…)
Patrick never comments directly on the opinions of other Executive Directors. Log Cabin’s position, however, is clear. LGBT Americans and organizations must reach out to Republicans, conservative Democrats, people of faith and red state Americans. We need to build grassroots so that our wins occur not only in courtrooms, but in legislatures and ballot boxes across the country.
It at least appears that Log Cabin doesn’t believe American democracy is “immoral”…..
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and self-described socialist, is now in the hunt to replace Howard Dean as the Fortune 500 Left Wing Loon of the Year.
“What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections,” Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. “Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo — people would be outraged.” (Hat tip: Right Side of the Rainbow)
So let’s see….. when you lose an election because you haven’t changed people’s opinion… they are the ones who are immoral. When you subvert the democratic process and storm into the court system to force feed gay marriage without reaching out to mainstream America…. they are the ones who are immoral.
Perhaps it is time for Mr. Foreman to move to a country he is more comfortable with? One where they embrace socialism, border on anti-capitalism, border on anti-Christian, and have fully embraced their “minority” population….
In their reactions to the withdrawal of the Miers nomination, both the Human Rights’ Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) show that they have absolutely no understanding of American conservatism, the dominant political philosophy in America today. Joe Solmonese, HRC”s president, claimed last week that her withdrawal “demonstrates that the president is beholden to extremist groups rather than to the American people”
Had this many paid any attention to the conservative debate over her nomination? While several pretty “extreme” social conservatives, namely Focus on the Family‘s James Dobson and Pat Robertson, supported the nomination, many mainstream conservatives, indeed, many libertarian conservatives opposed it. (Indeed, as I noted when I first blogged on the nomination, I was “troubled” that Ms. Miers’ “most enthusiastic support . . . came from social conservatives.”)
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force had a similar reaction suggesting that its leadership has spent more time reading its own press releases and other left-wing interpretations of the conservative movement than paying any attention to that movement itself. Its president, Matt Foreman, called Miers’ withdrawal “a sorry testament to the absolute control right-wing evangelicals have over this administration.” Moreover, he claimed that “Miers’ intellectual and professional abilities and accomplishments were never really on the table.” Actually, had he bothered to read conservative op-eds and blogs on the nomination, he would have noted that criticism of her intellectual ability, particularly her lack of demonstrated understanding of complex constitutional issues, was at the heart of countless conservative critiques of her nomination.
[Read more…]
GOP Gay Leader Dodges A Pie – Newsobserver.com
Okay, I guess this pie-throwing story is funny in retrospect. But my silly headline aside, in this day and age and given the University of Oklahoma suicide bomber, I honestly find this story a bit disturbing.
The head of a national gay Republicans group got “pied” Monday night while giving a speech at UNC-Chapel Hill for National Coming Out Day.
About five minutes into the speech, part of a week-long observance of National Coming Out Day, a person wearing dark clothes and a baseball cap launched the pie, witnesses said.
Guerriero, a former college soccer player, dodged the pie, but his suit coat got splattered.
“I faked to the left and moved to the right, which is probably something I do in politics sometimes,” he said Tuesday.
I give Patrick a lot of credit as he handled the situation with what sounds like grace and humor. And I swear there is no connection to the fact that he spoke at Carroll Hall.
-Bruce (GayPatriot…. still on percoset)
(Hat tip: Instapundit)
Rob Anderson at The New Republic has a must-read column on the hypocrisy and silence of the American gay “establishment.” Many of these points have been echoed at this site ad nauseum.
How America’s Gay Rights Establishment Is Failing Gay Iranians: The Quiet Americans – The New Republic Online
When it comes to the oppression of gays and lesbians in Muslim countries, gay activism hasn’t died; it never really existed. Gay activists have used two types of excuses to justify their failure to aggressively mobilize for the rights of gay Muslims–moral and strategic. The moral argument is that Americans are in no position to criticize Iranians on human rights–that it would be wrong to campaign too loudly against Iranian abuses when the United States has so many problems of its own. Then, there are two strategic rationales: that it is better to work behind the scenes to bring about change in Iran; and that gay rights groups should conserve their resources for domestic battles.
The strategic rationales are not especially compelling, but it is the moral argument that is particularly troubling, because it suggests that some gay and lesbian leaders feel more allegiance to the relativism of the contemporary left than they do to the universality of their own cause. Activists are more than willing to condemn the homophobic leaders of the Christian right for campaigning against gay marriage; but they are weary of condemning Islamist regimes that execute citizens for being gay. Something has gone terribly awry.
But gay activists need to come to a consensus sooner rather than later because, while they argue, Iranian lives are on the line. For now, mainstream gay organizations have made clear where they stand. As President Ahmadinejad, a man who is partially responsible for these brutalities, passed through New York last month, gay activists failed to confront him. Now he has returned to Iran, where those who are proven to be gay are thrown in jail, tortured, and executed on trumped-up charges. When it comes to the Muslim world, gay and lesbian leaders are evidently uncomfortable talking in moral absolutes. But if this is not absolute evil, then what is?
The problem for the American gay community is that our “establishment” no longer recognizes right from wrong. Only Red from Blue. And we know where their allegiance, money and time goes. It is not on behalf of moral absolutism, but political hackery.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): Now in his new perch at Malcontent, my buddy Robbie looks into this matter. Noting how Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Program at the Human Rights Watch, excused Muslims for gay bashing in Holland, he wonders:
If a gay couple had been assaulted by poor, Christian evangelicals in Alabama, I highly, highly suspect Mr. Long would not be waxing sympathetic about the effects of poverty or single motherhood. I am reasonably certain his condemnation would have been swift and furious, and rightfully so. Instead we are treated to an apologia, brazen excuses, and a reluctance to condemn the Religion of Peace.
Now, that I’ve whet your appetite, read the whole thing!
In a recent post, BoiFromTroy pointed out, while it appears “gay marriage has become the new litmus test for our community,” that “test apparently applies only to Republicans.” As soon as our Republican Governor vetoed the same-sex marriage bill, a great variety of gay activists and “leaders” attacked him, using insults usually reserved for President Bush and Karl Rove. Assemblyman Mark Leno accused that good man of being “on the wrong side of history.” Other gay people have called him “evil” and “hate-filled.”
I don’t think these activists used such harsh language to describe Bill Clinton in 1996 when, in the dead of the night, that Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Indeed, the Humans Rights Campaign (HRC) refused to rescind the endorsement it had given Clinton before he signed that bill into law. And unlike California in 2005, the American people in 1996 had not yet voted on the issue.
Indeed, when he vetoed the same-sex marriage bill, the Governor noted the popular vote, saying that he does “not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.” Despite this veto, he has taken, as blogger Matt Szabo put it, five steps forward for gays.
In my mind, the most significant of these “five steps” is the Governor’s unequivocal statement that he “will oppose any effort to strip gays of rights and responsibilities afforded under California’s domestic partnership laws“. As social conservatives ready a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to ban gay marriage and overturn the state’s domestic partnership program, the Governor has made clear where it stands. His opposition should ensure the defeat of this pernicious proposal.
[Read more…]
It seems that the folks over at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are easily outraged. While exactly half of the Senate’s Democratic caucus (including such “blue state” liberals as Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and Connecticut’s Christopher Dodd) voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice, the Task Force calls his “confirmation ‘beyond disappointing — outrageous’”
In a release filled with more vitriol than sense, Eleanor D. Acheson, NGLTF’s Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs faulted the Senate for failing to “stand up to the administration and effectively relinquished its constitutional ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities.” It seems she believes that “advice and consent” means delay and obstruct as she subsequently takes the Senate to task for “not holding Roberts’ nomination until he fully answered all the questions asked.” I wonder if she’s also upset that the Senate confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with a higher percentage of Republicans supporting that one-time ACLU activist) even though she had failed to fully answer all the questions asked. Or maybe it’s just that she interprets the Senate’s “advise and consent” role differently when a Republican is in the White House.
In the penultimate paragraph of her statement, she seems to be asking the president to follow his father’s lead and appoint another justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas. She demands that “The next nominee must be a person whose life experience includes some real exposure to and understanding of the disadvantaged and marginalized in our society and of the diversity of our population in myriad respects.”
[Read more…]
If you want evidence of where the gay movement is failing gay people, you only need look at this press release from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). For once, I basically agree with the Task Force, but find their rhetoric way over the top and counterproductive. It offends those they should be trying to convince.
They fault Pope Benedict XVI for favoring an “‘Instruction’ that gay men should not be ordained as Roman Catholic priests.” That is, the church would “bar even celibate gay men from seminaries” Instead of calling the practice wrong, narrow-minded, unfair or discriminatory, all terms which I would use, NGTLF’s Executive Director Matt Foreman calls it “evil” and accuses the Church of “unbridled hatred” of gay people.
This over-the-top rhetoric obscures the merits of their case. I had to read the release twice before realizing that I basically agreed with the Task Force on this one. It does them no good to call the church evil — or to attack the Church as Foreman does. His screed will not succeed in convincing many people (who do not already have a negative opinion of the Catholic Church) of the extreme nature of this “instruction.”
[Read more…]
G’Stater at the new New Jersey Blog has some recent updates on two stories that we all equate with the Garden State now.
Golan Cipel (McGreevey’s ‘mistress’)
“Forrester was clearly the stronger of the two candidates on stage tonight. He won the debate on points, but, unfortunately, political debates aren’t won on points — they’re won on perceptions, and expectations. * * * The one memorable line of the night from Doug: “If he’s [Corzine] a tax cutter, then Golan Cipel is a homeland security adviser.”
and
Democrats Corruption Not Confined to Homeland Security Funds.
Towns in legislative districts represented by Trenton’s ruling Democratic Party got nearly 90 percent of $86 million in special state grants the past three years, even though officials proclaimed they had removed politics from the process, a Star-Ledger analysis has found
A review of 10 programs showed state officials repeatedly ignored a carefully crafted application process and instead distributed the money to satisy wishes of key Democratic lawmakers.
The grants helped towns pay for everything from Homeland Security equipment and tourism promotion, to library shelves and ramps for the disabled.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
In a post last week, Bruce linked a gem of the witty (and often wise)
In his piece, Robbie puts forward a theory one similar to that I had spelled out in many of my posts on gay marriage, but takes this argument in a direction that might upset many advocates of gay marriage. He says that we need to earn marriage:
Gay liberals want gay marriage right now. They don’t particularly care how they get it, just so long as they get it. When they don’t get it, they tend to throw temper tantrums of enormous proportions. Gay conservatives, on the other hand, realize the importance of how we get it. We know we cannot simply demand it and have it granted through the beatific wave of the magical judicial wand. We must argue for it, persuade for it, and convince others of why we must have it. The method is just as important, if not more so, as the final result.
Some will contend, “But straight people didn’t need to make such arguments for marriage!” Straight marriage (one man to one woman) existed as institution long before the United States came into being, indeed, long before the idea of a constitutional republic was even discussed.
The notion of gay marriage, of two individuals living together in a lifelong monogamous relationship, is a relatively novel idea. Sure, some cultures have recognized such institutions. In the United States, however, until recently, even the staunchest gay rights’ advocates didn’t consider it.
As this blog has done, Robbie looks at the backlash against court-sanctioned gay marriage, noting the numbers of states which have passed “protection of marriage” laws and constitutional amendments. At the same time, too many advocates of gay marriage belittle opponents as “bigoted,” “narrow-minded” or “anti-gay” without taking the time to understand their arguments.
It’s important that, as Robbie puts it, through “ardent, but respectful engagement of the issue,” we make our case. And I will also add, as I’ve said before, we need to talk about marriage as a sacred institution and make clear that we do not just see this as a right to which we are entitled, but a privilege for which we are willing to work. That we understand the obligations of matrimony and are committed to living up to them just as heterosexual couples have done for millennia.
And now that I’ve whet your appetite for Robbie’s post, read the whole thing!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Another great gem from PrismWarden — Tell Me Lies And I’ll Love You Forever.
No matter what our disagreements, we are forced through various pressures to live in the same homosexual house, and we all have different ideas about how that house should be run. Studying this, I have come to a conclusion:
Gay conservatives are the parents, and gay liberals are the teenagers.
Nailed it!
The problem with the gay liberal mindset is that it is infested with a naïve idealism and penchant for wanting to see the world as how they wish it to be, not how it objectively is. The Democratic Party is their first true high school love, and like all true loves, the warts and faults have been smudged to a blurry shadow cast by their perceived Adonis.
Gay conservatives, on the other hand, are generally cynical adults. While some decry it as nothing more than jaded bitterness, cynicism is a characteristic wrought of experience and the wisdom that accompanies it. The Republican Party is not our true love, nor particularly a love. They are a friend we generally respect without feeling a need to be inexpressibly loyal to their every belief. We realize grown adults may reasonably disagree with one another without destroying a friendship and indignantly declaring, “You don’t love me!” before flouncing out of the room.
Please read the entire piece. PrismWarden gets to the heart of something I’ve been thinking a lot about since beginning this blog. Why are gay liberals so hateful toward gay conservatives?
The parent/kid relationship is a great way to explain it. Another way is that Gay Conservatives have figured out how to be gay within the American mainstream and even among those who tolerate but disapprove. Gay Liberals want to be there, but are too busy throwing stones and having temper tantrums and demanding instant and total gratification to figure out how to do it.
In short, Gay Liberals are jealous of Gay Conservatives. Discuss…
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Sad news…..
Political Penguin Would Know Not To Open Its Beak – Chicago Tribune
Roy and Silo, the two famous gay penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo, are no longer a pair. Silo has gone straight.
They broke up after six years together. Once, they were provided a donated egg. They sat on it and hatched it and this was celebrated as some kind of penguin lifestyle choice in the New York Times on Feb. 7, 2004, under the headline “The Love that Dare Not Squeak Its Name.”
But that’s so over.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I’m devasted. I may not be able to blog for a week. –GPW
Proving that he is above the mean and petty comments made by many gay activists and their allies in the state legislature, the good Governor of California has requested a meeting with leaders of the Golden State’s gay community. While Governor Schwarzenegger has not yet committed to attending the meeting next Wednesday, his chief of staff will chair the gathering.
Since the Governor indicated last week that he would veto a gay-marriage bill which passed the state Assembly, gay activists (particularly one very partisan state legislator) have leveled a number of accusations against him. At the same time, the legislature has been playing games with this legislation. Using a procedural maneuver, it has delayed the delivery of the bill to the Governor.
According to Log Cabin, Governor Schwarzenegger has already signed five pieces of pro-gay legislation since taking office in November 2003. With this meeting, this good man proves once again his concern for gay and lesbian citizens of the Golden State. It’s important now that we recognize that politicians can be pro-gay without supporting gay marriage.
Let’s not forget that nine years ago, HRC refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton when, in the dead of the night, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Yeah, lookie here! You too can be a meth addict and, if you are lucky and don’t die, grow up and be built and hot like the coverguy glorified in the current issue of “Advocate.”
This from the same gang that vilified the pharmaceutical industry’s advertising showing HIV patients on meds being buff and climbing mountains.
Do as I say…. not as I do. Right, Advocate? What hypocrites! In case you are moved…..
letters@advocate.com
Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 4371
Los Angeles, CA 90078
Phone: (323) 871-1225
Fax: (323) 467-6805
By the way, this is exactly the kind of crap that Log Cabin Republicans should take a stand on since it is typical of the senselessness of the Gay Left and the images that the gay media uses to portray gay men. But I guess there is too much Massachusetts-partying going on right now over at LCR HQ for them to care about this silly life-and-death stuff.
Oh, and don’t tell me that the issue is about “recovering” from meth and that the Advocate is actually campaigning against it. Remember, a picture is worth 1,000 words.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
While the hate-filled Gay Lefties are consumed with their own bile… .the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives just passed anti-hate crimes legislation.
When the Democrats controlled the US House for FORTY years, this never happened.
Developing….
UPDATE: Log Cabin Republicans release statement. Meanwhile today, the Human Rights Campaign blames Bush…. for something about abortion I’m sure. Here’s LCR’s release, and yes… the HRC release, too…. after the jump.
[Read more…]
Here is a good piece written by Nick, also to be known now as “ColoradoPatriot”.
================
So I knew there was something, but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. Something was telling me there was a reason gays and lesbians should be Pro-Life instead of Pro-Choice. Finally yesterday it dawned on me:
“Pro-choice advocates” aren’t as much pro-choice as they are pro-abortion. Now, either side of this argument (or whichever shade of grey) you fall on, you have to admit that the leaders of this position (NARAL, NOW, etc.) aren’t merely concerned about making sure the procedure is “safe and rare.” No, these groups are for on-demand, anytime, anywhere abortion for all, no matter what. This, to be fair, does not necessarily represent the entire population who identify themselves as “pro-choice”. But it is who is representing them. (And it is who the gay ‘leaders’ are associating with.)
That being understood, it’s those “advocates” who want absolutely no restrictions on abortions who cannot bring themselves to condemn partial-birth abortions or abortions of “inconvenient” babies, such as those with birth-defects or even of an undesirable sex. As this drives the debate, let’s think about that in a different context:
What’s the most commonly held medical/scientific belief in the gay and lesbian community these days? We’re born this way, right? There’s a gene maybe, or at least something that happens during gestation that makes us gay. For some reason (and I’ve never been able to understand why), this is a crucial part of the psyche of the collective gay community. For whatever reason, just think for a minute how that belief matches the pro-abortion advocacy:
It’s only a matter of time before some industrious biologist or geneticist or whatnot comes along and says: Here! is the gene that causes homosexuality, or Here! is the chemical in the amniotic fluid that leads to gay babies (a la the hypothalamus)! So if the drive-by Walgreen’s abortion proponents don’t want any restrictions on abortion, what’s to keep the following scene from occurring:
“Well I’ve run all the tests, and I’m sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Your fetus is perfectly healthy except he’s going to be a queer. Luckily, since the Supreme Court has allowed it, we can take care of that right now and then you can get on home and give it another shot making another, hopefully heterosexual fetus. What do you say?”
Now, this isn’t to say we’ll devolve into some Huxley/Orwell/Darwin world wherein the government or science decides which “defects” are “viable” and which are not. But it does leave open the door for any parent who might not want a gay baby to have the option of aborting it for that reason alone.
Ultimately, here’s the question the gay community needs to ask HRC and other pro-choice gay organizations: Would you advocate, and (more importantly) would you lobby NARAL and NOW (etc.) to advocate restrictions on abortions of convenience such as this? If they can’t honestly answer that question in less than 3 seconds, I think we know where their loyalties lie. And that’s kinda creepy.
I caught literally 10 minutes of the Roberts confirmation hearings this afternoon while I was woofing down lunch. Under questioning by Sen. Joseph “I Cheated In Law School” Biden, Roberts clearly stated that he believes there is an inherent right of privacy that goes beyond physical restraint.
So, to all of the gay groups that opposed him for assuming he didn’t believe that….. will you apologize?
And all of you GayPatriotContrarians who opposed him for that reason….. will you apologize?
I know the answer already….
UPDATE: Stephen Miller at Independent Gay Forum covers Roberts’ testimony on Tuesday more in depth.
Judge John Roberts, blasted by gay abortion leftwing activists as a dangerous threat to our basic liberties, during his testimony on Tuesday spoke eloquently about the equal protection clause, saying that while the context was clearly about slavery, the intent of the framers was broader than just racial inequality.
Read the whole piece. Stephen had more time to watch than I did!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Awww…. too bad.
Chad (Cake or Death) has all the details.
Chad expresses surprise. Not me. All politics is local andMr. Ellner forgot that. So now he is a loser. (But, a cute loser. —GPW)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Wow…. who’d have thought that a newspaper in Boston would ever agree with me on a gay rights issue?
Intimidation On The Web – Boston Herald Editorial
You’d think that people who have in their lives experienced a certain level of discrimination might be just a little sensitive to the feelings of others. But that’s apparently too much to ask of Tom Lang and his spouse Alex Westerhoff, who have launched knowthyneighbor.org.
The aim here is clearly to intimidate. It is also an open invitation to harass those who sign on to the measure. It’s rather like earlier efforts by ardent anti-abortion groups who posted the names of doctors who performed abortions on their Web sites. At least one of those doctors ended up dead.
Lang and Westerhoff are engaging in an ugly, ugly bit of business that can only lose them the support of Massachusetts voters who might otherwise be content to live and let live.
– Bruce (GayPatriot)