GayPatriot Reader and blogger Eva Young e-mailed me to note that there might be changes afoot at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as that liberal-leaning, but ostensibly bipartisan organization was only opposing the confirmation of one of President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench–William Pryor (whose confirmation your humble blogger also opposed). Many other gay groups joined the swarm of liberal interest groups supporting Democratic filibusters against a number of the president’s nominees. Yet, like Log Cabin, HRC, it seemed, was opposing only the one with a clearly anti-gay record.
To see whether or not this was true, I called up and HRC. I spoke first with Deputy Director of Media Relations, Mark Shields, who told me that “Pryor is the only one [judicial nominee] we are actively opposing because of his views against GLBT Americans.” Shields cited the amicus brief that Pryor had filed as Alabama Attorney General in Lawrence v. Texas where he “compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.” The Senate confirmed Pryor last week by a vote of 53-45 with three Republicans voting against his confirmation.
Later, I spoke with HRC’s Senior Counsel Lara Schwartz who told me that HRC “did not take a formal position on [Priscilla] Owen nor on [Janice] Rogers Brown,” two recently-confrmed nominees whom many liberal groups had opposed. Schwartz also drew my attention to a February letter that HRC had signed in which a variety of interest groups expressed “deep concern about the about the level of review” the Senate Judiciary committee was undertaking “regarding the nomination of Terrence Boyle to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.” Schwartz later e-mailed me, writing, “HRC formally opposes the nomination of Terrance Boyle to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.”
By and large, it seems that HRC has steered clear of the liberal position on federal judges to focus on those appointees of greatest concern to gay and lesbian Americans. And that’s not the only change I see at HRC. While other gay organizations and activists, including HRC’s own immediate past president, have portrayed the president as an anti-gay demon, a recent HRC press release acknowledged the president’s opposition to discrimination against gay and lesbian federal employees.
[Read more…]

According to a news release from Log Cabin, Scott J. Bloch, Special Counsel at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, testified before the Senate yesterday that “he did not believe current law protects federal employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
To be sure, his belief represents one interpretation of the law, but an interpretation at odds with the policy of the Bush Administration. And at odds with President Clinton’s Executive Order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal workforce. Despite pressure from social conservatives, President Bush kept his campaign promise not to repeal this order.
Not only that. Last year, the White House reiterated its understanding that “federal policy prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation.” (An attempt to overturn this Executive Order by statute was defeated by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in 1998.)
That order merely codified long-standing federal policy. More than twenty years ago, Bush Administration Solicitor General Ted Olsen said, “it is improper to deny employment to or to terminate anyone on the basis of sexual preference or conduct that does not adversely affect job performance.?
If Mr. Bloch is unwilling to enforce this long-standing federal policy, supported by the president and conservative jurists, then Log Cabin is right to call on him to resign his office.
UPDATE: Blog reader Mr. Moderate linked me to this “WASHINGTON POST” article on Mr. Bloch’s testimony. After reading that article, it is clear that Bloch has based his belief on the fact that since no federal law bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, his office lacks a mechanism to enforce the Executive Order and longstanding policy.
Yet, if I recall my Administative Law class correctly, while Mr. Bloch’s office may not be able to prosecute federal officials who discriminate based on sexual orientation, it should be able to reprimand them for such discrimination and protect the employee claiming discrimination.

When I updated my post on Log Cabin member Mike Gin’s election as Mayor of Redondo Beach, I noted that I would have more to say on this as soon as my guests left town. Indeed, it seems that in my post on their visit, I expressed thoughts similar some of my thoughts on Mike’s election. Just like most people at Disneyland took my friends’ public display of their sexuality in stride, my sense is that most people in Redondo Beach took his sexuality in stride.
In a post on Mike’s election, BoifromTroy links to a column in the LATimes where Steve Lopez notes that when Mike campaigned for mayor, he listened to his would-be constituents and focused his campaign on items of concern to them such as “creative partnerships between the city and schools, public safety and well-managed growth.” The mayor-elect concluded that his election showed that his fellow citizens “judged me on my work and my service to the community and not on the basis of my sexual orientation.” He pointed out that his sexuality is “not the type of thing that I wear on my sleeve.”
This seems another sign of the basic tolerance of the American people. In urban and most suburban areas, most voters could care less about a candidate’s sexual orientation. They’re paying more attention to how the candidate addresses issues of concern to them. Since Mike focused his campaign on such issues, he won a big victory.
[Read more…]

A well thought-out column about the impact of private accounts in Social Security was published this weekend in the San Francisco Chronicle. Andrew Lee, the author, also appears to be a GayPatriot reader as he emailed the link to us on Sunday. Nice job, Andrew! There are some great points outlined in the column.

If allowed to go forth, Social Security privatization will limit the ability of the government to act as arbiter of Social Security survivor benefits, and therefore recognition of beneficiaries. Up to this point, gay activists have focused on working through the judiciary and state or local governments to recognize same-sex partnerships. Although the gay community might dream of government recognition, at present this is impractical. Without sweeping federal redefinition, gays and lesbians will continue to receive unequal benefits. If they are to make the best of the situation, they should support private accounts, forming alliances with Republicans who support limited government.

Social Security Reform – Red, Blue and Rainbow – SFGate.com
Andrew also mentions the flack that the Human Rights Campaign took when they dabbled with the idea of supporting the President’s reform plans. Too bad that HRC is once again on the wrong side of the American public. In broad terms, private accounts enjoy majority support in the latest poll done on the subject, despite the Washington Post’s attempts to find all the bad news for Bush.
The Sky Is Falling – PoliPundit.com

?Would you support or oppose a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market??
Support 56%
Oppose 41%
Unsure 3%

Poor Eric Stern, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats. This partisan seems to have forgotten how democracy works. The Washington Blade reports that Mr. Stern is upset that President Bush plans to resubmit the names of 20 individuals whom he nominated to the federal bench in his first term, but whose nominations were not voted on by the full Senate (as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution).
Blade reporter Eartha Melzer, got her facts wrong when she said these nominees were “rejected” during the president’s first term. These nominations weren’t rejected. Senate Democrats used obstructionist tactics to prevent these nominations from being voted on.
Now, Mr. Stern whines:

The battle for LGBT rights is moving through the courts right now. . . . The right wing wants to hand pick and install judges that will rule against the right to marry. . . . And while the rest of the country progresses on gay marriage and other issues, these conservative judges will be in place for a very long time.

Here, he reveals his strategy for advancing “LGBT rights”–do it through the courts. Instead of trying to change the hearts and minds of the American people, Mr. Stern and his Democrats want the courts to decide for us.
In seeking to bypass democratic institutions, this Democrat also shows that he doesn’t really understand democracy. If indeed the rest of the country is progressing on gay marriage, as he claims, then in short order, advocates of gay marriage will be able to bring initiatives to state ballots — or introduce bills in state legislatures — to overturn the recent raft of referenda, laws and state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
At present, these “conservative judges,” whom Mr. Stern unfairly maligns, will surely rule against, what he calls, “the right to marry,” since no state legislature has yet passed a bill extending the definition of marriage to same-sex couples. (Nor have the citizens of any state voted for a similar extension.) But, since most conservative judges have shown deference to state legislatures, if the country is indeed progressing as Mr. Stern claims, then, to be true to their principles, these judges would defer to the states when the people — or their elected representatives — enact laws defining same-sex unions as marriage.

Although openly gay Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Barney Frank distinguished himself at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland by taking on the anti-American bias of Eason Jordan, CNN’s then-Chief News Executive, he has recently returned to his narrow partisan ways. Earlier this week, he blasted New York’s Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg for appealing a “state judge’s ruling ordering the city to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
Frank, however, did not mention that the Empire State’s likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee for ’06, Eliot Spitzer, like New York City’s Republican Mayor, also favors appealing the state court decision. Nor did he attack either of New York’s Democratic Senators (Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton) who, unlike Mayor Bloomberg, oppose gay marriage.
Thus, like so many gay activists, Barney Frank’s opposition to Mayor Bloomberg’s decision is mere partisan grandstanding. It’s not the Mayor’s stand that bothers him so much as the Mayor’s political affiliation. That irritating R after his name. Gay City News reporter Andy Humm got it right when he wrote the Frank is “not unknown for his sharp partisanship.”
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

My blog-league has already commented (here, here and here) on Human Rights Campaign‘s selection of Joe Solmonese as its new president.
Someone who has spent twelve years working for an organization “dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office” is hardly going to help HRC fulfill its mission to “effectively” lobby a Congress with both Houses controlled by Republicans.
Simply put, how can Solmonese expect to gain access to Republican offices when he has spent so much time working to elect Democrats? Scanning a list of the women Solmonese’s previous employer helped elect shows some of the most liberal members of Congress. Connections to Barbara Boxer and Cynthia McKinney will hardly help him curry favor with America’s majority party.
Aside: would HRC complain if a Republican group has hired as its new president an individual who had worked for a group which discriminated against women by working to elect only men with a certain political agenda?
The selection of Joe Solmonese confirms what I have long observed about HRC. Its claim that it is a “bipartisan organization” is mere window-dressing. Even Log Cabin’s Chris Barron acknowledges that HRC has become a Democratic organization: “The selection of an experienced Democratic activist will allow HRC to solidify and strengthen Democratic support for equality.”
It’s time for HRC to change its mission statement. And time for the gay community to recognize that this group which deems itself “America’s largest gay and lesbian organization” is making no effort to reach out to the political party a majority of Americans chose last fall to run our federal government.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Man, I love our readers!!! The “Equal” sign becomes the “Pause” symbol as seen on many electronic items. That is probably generous given that HRC now seems to be going in the opposite direction of America.

Christian Grantham broke the news first… he has the official word this morning.
HRC Confirms: Joe Solomonese Is New President and CEO
From an email sent out by the Human Rights Campaign….

“At HRC, he will not only continue building an extraordinary bipartisan political operation, he will also develop innovative programs to talk to America about GLBT lives.
Joe is excited to expand the conversation with America beyond the political to the personal, engaging with communities of faith, communities of color, and empowering all GLBT Americans and their families and friends.”

*choking on my bagel*
Hey Joe…. tip number one…. don’t tell these communities of faith what you did in your former job as the head of Emily’s List. I guess HRC can’t deny anymore that they are a pro-abortion organization when they call PatriotPartner trolling for money again.
Oh, and here’s a great addition to Joe’s resume for Red State America to learn all about. GayPatriotWest found out last week that Ol’ Joe is a board member of “America Votes, Inc.” an umbrella group for all of America’s favorite left wing radical groups. So the new head of HRC sits on the board of an organization whose top contributor is George Soros! At least Log Cabin Republicans won’t be the only gay rights group shut out of the White House.
Yeah, just what the gay community needs right now to earn respect in Majority America… to be expanding their radical ways by hiring a pro-abortionist with ties George Soros to lead their largest and most public organization. Good Lord!

More often than not conservative pundit Ann Coulter is a little too polemical for my tastes, but her column yesterday in FrontPage Magazine made me smile:

So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. Two weeks ago, the New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings. Conservatives don’t want gays to die; we just don’t want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.
By contrast, liberals say: “We love gay people! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome! Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don’t agree with us, we’ll punish you by telling everyone that you’re gay!”

Hat tip: Powerline and Christian Grantham who has a different take on Coulter’s piece. Read her column and his criticism.

Christian Grantham has the exclusive — Joe Solomonese to lead HRC?
And why am I not surprised that HRC would pick a pro-choice abortion activist to lead their group into the Red State American Century?

Joe Solmonese is the CEO of Emily’s List, a national organization that supports pro-choice Democratic women candidates throughout the country.

After all, abortion promotion makes total sense as a gay rights agenda plank, right? *note sarcasm*
PatriotPartner once hung up on an HRC soliciation call when they lied and denied to him that they are a pro-abortion group. Heh, heh.
Hey, if Joe takes the job…. I’m thrilled. I’m confident having another out-of-touch Gay Streeter in charge of a gay-funded membership organization sitting in a multimillion dollar palace in the center of DC will give me TONS more material in the coming months. Wooo hoooo.

An important vote of the people took place yesterday in Topeka, Kansas… America’s heartland. A referendum was on the ballot for Topeka residences which, if passed, would have repealed gay rights protections for a decade. (Hat tip: KenSain.com)
Topeka: Yes to Gay Rights, No to Phelps Clan – 365gay.com
It failed by a vote of 14,285 to 12,795. The measure was begun by notorious anti-gay preacher Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps. In a double whammy to the Phelps family, Fred’s granddaughter performed miserably in her attempt to oust a lesbian Topeka councilwoman.
2005 Topeka Primary Election Results – Topeka Capital-Journal
And now the irony. Here’s a money quote from Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

“Today, the people of Topeka not only rejected discrimination, they chose decency over immorality, truth over despicable lies, and they repudiated the hate-filled beliefs and practices of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka,” said Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Now wait just a minute! Isn’t this the same Matt Foreman who said this following the disastrous 11-state rout of gay marriage on Election Day, 2004?

“The results underscore why we have a Bill of Rights – because it is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote. In fact, even today, 213 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, it is doubtful Americans could win our freedoms of speech, press and religion at the ballot box,” said Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Whoa, nellie. You can’t have it both ways. When the results go your way, then it is okay to put basic civil rights up for a vote? But when it goes against you, then the American people are stoopid, bigoted morons who can’t be trusted?
C’mon, Matt! Get some credibility back. Get out to Red State America more often and you will find you have every reason to trust the American people. But not when you and your group continually assault the President, our nation, and our judgment as Americans.

As a follow up to my posting “Governor W. George Bush ‘Outed’” on February, 20…. I direct your attention to this news article from Joe Crea at the Washington Blade.
Secret tapes shed light on Bush and gays – Washington Blade
Apparently Doug Wead, the former Bush confidant with the secret tapes, was fired from the White House for showing his own anti-gay bias.

The man who secretly taped phone conversations with President Bush in 1998 was fired from the George H.W. Bush administration in 1990 because he objected to gay activists participating in two White House bill signings, according to media reports from the time.
Doug Wead, a former special assistant to the first President Bush, and the man who secretly recorded private conversations with then Gov. George W. Bush in 1998, was reportedly fired after objecting to the presence of gay leaders at two presidential bill signing ceremonies: the Hate Crimes Statistics Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Looks like when Bush told Doug Wead in the secret tapes that he didn’t want to “kick gays”…. he meant it and showed Doug the door.
UPDATE: Commenters have rightly pointed out that it was President Bush “41” who fired Wead. My bad. I guess not wanting to “kick gays” runs in the family?

Has Andrew Sullivan been reading GayPatriot on our GannonGate comments?? Here and here and here and here. It sure seems like it!
Daily Dish – February 25
In any case, he hits my anger at this hypocrisy of the left right on the nose.

The real scandal is the blatant use of homophobic rhetoric by the self-appointed Savonarolas of homo-left-wingery. It’s an Animal Farm moment: the difference between a fanatic on the gay left and a fanatic on the religious right is harder and harder to discern. Just ask yourself: if a Catholic conservative blogger had found out that a liberal-leaning pseudo-pundit/reporter was a gay sex worker, had outed the guy as gay and a “hooker,” published pictures of the guy naked, and demanded a response from a Democratic administration, do you think gay rights groups would be silent? They’d rightly be outraged. But the left can get away with anything, can’t they? Especially homophobia.

You got it, Sully. We’ve been making that case on saying that here for weeks on a variety of subjects.
UPDATE: A GP Reader notes that this cartoon is up at AmericaBlog.org. “Would the gay left find this cartoon funny if the shoe were on the other foot?” Of course not, there would be outrage all over Gay Street.
Why is homophobia now a talking point of the left wing? And they call me self-loathing! *grin*

Here’s an interesting column in today’s Washington Blade.
White privilege harms struggle – Irene Monroe
Check out the racist code language in here. It is absolutely obvious and hysterical! White gay people are privileged “queers”, but don’t mess with the “African-American LGBTQ community.” If such language were used in a column by a conservative columnist, you know there would be hell to pay.
And, you can’t get through a liberal gay column without our good friend, the Victimization Complex, having to pay a visit.

Leaving out the voices of LGBTQ people of color, the same-sex marriage debate is being hijacked by a white upper class queer universality that not only renders these marginalized queer communities invisible, but ? as it is presently framed ? also renders them speechless.

Wow, what power these white queers have!!! According to this columnist, they are practically putting the African-American LGBTQ community under Free Speech house arrest! Oh, the outrage. I’m surprised that Ms. Monroe was allowed to buy a pen from the evil white queers to even write her column.
As I said regarding the Grease Truck incident… we have come a long way out of our “oppression” if this is the type of bull that the gay community is fighting over in Boston.
So, once again this is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the gay liberal radicals. They mouth the words “diversity” but they can’t help falling into their own hate-filled, paradoxical separatist tendencies, can they?

Forget marriage. It is the wrong issue at the wrong time. Also, it isn’t quite clear to me anyway why the gay activists have put the line in the sand on marriage and declared it “the ultimate gay civil right.”
No. As a number of commenters have said the past day or so, there are many ways to protect you and your partner’s relationship without conquering this titanic struggle over “marriage.” Frankly, I’m wondering if “marriage” has more to do with the Human Rights Campaign raising more money with a sexy issue than anything else? Sorry, they are a bunch of money grubbing cocktail clinking elitists.
But back to my true point…. the REAL gay civil right, my friends, is protection of gays and lesbians in the workplace. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be accomplished if you are harassed or never hired because you are gay. And that is where our sole focus should be, not riding full-speed against the Marriage Windmills.
And in the true spectrum of this gay civil rights struggle…. job discrimination…. there is progress.
Now, I will first admit I saw both of these items in an email from the HRC.
Washington State House Passes Gay Non-Discrimination Bill – Seattle Times
Montana State Senate Passes Bill Barring Bias Against Gays, Lesbians – Great Falls Tribune
But there is a reason why you don’t hear about job discrimination as much as marriage from HRC or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and others. First, because there is actual progress going on and that goes against the Gay Left’s Victimization Campaign — everyone is against us.
And second, because the Gay Left’s interests are not yours. They are anti-capitalistic, pro-abortion, anti-War on Terror, and anti-religion. Their interests are to raise more money and cast all Republicans as evil concentration camps builders.
So don’t listen to The Advocate and your local shrill gay newspaper when they tell you about all this darned oppression and moving backwards in time to the stone ages. Dig deeper. Ask yourself why the Gay Borg want you to think the way they do… and then look at your wallet and you will know the answer.
Ending gay/lesbian job discrimination is the true gay civil rights struggle we could be winning. But your leaders are abandoning you in the name of marriage.

After a busy past twenty-four hours, I finally had the chance to get through a backlog of e-mail and discovered among the various missives an op-ed from Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation Vice President Winnie Stachelberg and a link to an HRC press release on the costs of “one of the great injustices and follies of our time,” (the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy).
While I don’t agree with everything in Ms. Stachelberg’s Op-ed, she’s right that with news of a “possible new, more virulent strain” of HIV, we “need a redoubled effort to create new prevention strategies.” And she makes this interesting observation:

The most recent issue of one of the most popular GLBT magazines had 6 six pages of glossy full-color ads for HIV drugs. There were zero pages of HIV prevention advertising.

Her words made me wonder whether or not these images of handsome and healthy men frolicking about in ads for HIV drugs cause gay men to discount the consequences of infection. (Which could help explain why, even when knowing the risks, some gay men still have unsafe sex.)
[Read more…]

This idea may sound crazy at first, but man what a sea change for this simple, conservative concept to be coming out of a REPUBLICAN legislator. Of course, I’d be more impressed if it were Augusta, Georgia rather than Augusta, Maine. But I like where the inspiration came from, too.
Maine House Bill Would Protect Fetuses Carrying the “Gay Gene” – Magic City Morning Star (hat tip – GayOrbit)

Duprey received the idea for this bill when listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. ?I heard Rush saying that the day the ?gay gene? is determined to be real, that overnight gays would become pro-life,? Duprey said.
?Most people would agree that to kill someone just because that person might be gay would constitute a hate crime,? said Duprey. ?I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected.?

I wish I’d have heard this story before I went on McMullen’s show yesterday!
Welcome to readers of The Corner!

Just ended the interview/call-in segment with John McMullen on SIRIUS OutQ radio. I think it went well, though we got caught up too long in my opinion on the subject of “outing” Congressional staffers — but that is why this blog started.
Interestingly, as my interview was ending, the last caller subtly threw out the usual, but tired “you are a Jew working for the Nazis.” And she suggested we are all headed for those rumored “gay concentration camps” to be slaughtered.
I just laughed and told John that for the past 10 years, I’ve been warned by my gay Democrat friends about these feared gay camps — probably somewhere in Montana.
John said that he had never heard of that…. I said all you have to do is look at any of the left wing bloggers and it is always there. And, I said “that type of rhetoric is simply unproductive.”
So there we go…. I hope some of you were able to listen.

In the March 1, 2005, issue of “THE ADVOCATE,” not, alas, available online, reporter Emily Heil notes that Log Cabin supports the president’s plan to set up personal retirement accounts for Social Security. Log Cabin’s Political Director Chris Barron pointed out that such accounts “would be a tremendous step forward for gay and lesbian families.” Under the current system, he notes, his partner would get nothing if he were to die while “under the president’s plan,” he could leave his account “to anyone.”
One would think that other gay groups would follow Log Cabin’s lead and support these reforms which make it possible for gay couples to get benefits they do not currently have. But, alas, the “ADVOCATE” reports that gay leaders are more concerned with currying favor with Democrats than they are with helping gay couples:

But offering any kind of support for Bush’s plan means going against the Democratic leadership, something other gay rights activists see as shortsighted. “That would be a fundamental and irreparable breach with our allies in Congress who have stood beside us for decades,” [Matt] Foreman [Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force] said.

Is Foreman suggesting that if gay groups were to support the president on this one program, they will thereafter be shunned by the Democratic congressional leadership? By calling such support a “fundamental breach,” Mr. Foreman suggests that the Democratic leadership views any alliance with President Bush as an unpardonable offense. That Democrats are not interested in engaging the president is serious debate and discussion of reform, but in obstructing his every policy.
[Read more…]