Gay Patriot

Just another WordPress site

A thoughtful conservative perspective on gay marriage

by

Eva Young linked me to this thoughtful post on gay marriage. It is a long post, but the author, Craig Westover, makes a number of good points. I will single out just two and encourage you to read the whole thing.
First, he articulates a truly conservative case for gay marriage, by suggesting an incremental approach, starting with “some kind of civil union or child protection measures for gay families” and seeing what happens.
Second, he makes an excellent cause against a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman while addressing the legitimate concern that many conservatives have of judicial activism:

If the concern were really activist courts, all that is necessary is an amendment that says state courts shall exercise no jurisdiction over the decisions of the legislature regarding the gender requirements of marriage — or words to that effect. If that were the language, that would leave the legislature and the people free to decide in the future if the state wants to have gay marriage, but take the courts out of it. That’s what conservatives should support, not an exclusionary amendment.

Exactly.
These are only two of the many excellent points he makes. Since Mr. Westover put a good deal of thought in his piece, I repeat, READ THE WHOLE THING!!

Civil union referendum in Switzerland

by

Instapundit references a post by a Swiss reader of this blog (who also e-mailed me a heads-up) about tomorrow’s referendum on civil partnership in this European nation. Fran?ois notes how quickly Western attitudes toward gays have changed:

The change of attitude regarding gays and lesbians in the western world is quite extraordinary: it is less than 40 years since a prudent decriminalization of homosexual acts began in Britain (in 1967), following the Wolfenden report. And the very idea that same sex couples should be recognized and supported emerged only in the 1980s, an unlikely side-effect of the AIDS epidemic which forced gay men to go public or die, and society to acknowledge them or reject them (with great risk regarding the spread of the HIV virus). It was enacted into law for the first time in 1989 in Denmark.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, read the whole thing!
UPDATE: The referdum passed with 58% of Swiss voters approving recognition of same-sex couples for tax and pension purposes.

Crash: a movie which gets it right–and reminds us what matters

by

It often seems that the best movies we discover are not those whose trailers entice us or which the media hypes, but those we hear about from our friends and colleagues. I can’t recall seeing an ad or trailer for Crash. The first I heard of it was when, a few weeks ago, one friend told me it was the only movie she had seen recently. Since then, I keep running into people who tell me how amazing this movie is. When I went to buy a ticket on Sunday night, it was sold out at the Grove. The following morning, I saw an article in the LA Times. The sub-headline noted that the flick had “become the movie to see and discuss.”
Not wanting to know about the movie before I saw it, I set the article aside and prepared to arrive nearly an hour early to buy a ticket to see a screening that night at the Arclight. It was of the rare times when I went to see a movie about which I knew nothing–only that a lot of people had enjoyed it.
While I smiled in recognizing the truth in Don Cheadle‘s opening monologue that people in LA are so afraid to touch that we often come together only by crashing into one another, the movie began to lose me. People didn’t seem to be dealing with each another as individuals, but as representatives of their race. I have rarely — even in LA — see racial attitudes so directly expressed. I could understand why one women in Texas walked out “an hour before the film’s ending.” According to the LA Times, Angela Clemons of Tyler, Texas said the film “seemed to pit every race against the other races.” Yet, even after watching about half the movie, she couldn’t “get the dang movie out of [her] head.” Nor can I.
WARNING TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM, I GIVE AWAY SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE FILM’S ENDING BELOW
[Read more…]

Review of Downfall and Sith

by

After seeing the powerful movie Downfall on Hitler’s last days, I read my friend Rick Sincere‘s combined review of that film and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. I recommend both movies and the review.
UPDATE: While I think Dirty Harry’s review of Revenge of the Sith is a little harsh, it’s a fun read. And he makes some good points, especially when he notes that Han Solo is “sorely missing in this saga.”

Dean v. Mehlman: a contrast in attitude

by

While Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean garners headlines for his hateful anti-Repubilican rhetoric in his cross-country travels, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman has been getting little in attention in the national media for his trips across the country. According to USA Today, Mr. Mehlman “is courting black and Hispanic voters on a regular basis. . . . he has visited Latino neighborhoods and historically black campuses.”
In contrast his Democratic counterpart, Mr. Mehlman offers a positive vision of his party, recently speaking to an audience at Orange County’s Lincoln Juarez Opportunity Center, saying that the GOP’s “encouragement of home and business ownership, personal accountability and hard work vs. social service handouts are the American values that appeal to many Hispanics.” And while the RNC chair is putting forward a positive vision of his party, Howard Dean continues to badmouth his opponents, recently telling a Democratic audience in Washington, D.C. that Republicans could wait in line eight hours to vote because “Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.”
And this is just the latest of the Democratic chairman’s mudslinging. He has said he hates “the Republicans and everything they stand for” and accused us of being “mean.” Someone seems to be projecting here.
To be sure, there has always been mean-spirited rhetoric in American politics. Yet, most party chairmen have eschewed such language to focus on party building. They know that nasty rhetoric alone is not enough to win elections. Mr. Dean may well have a positive vision of what Democrats stand for, but his nasty rhetoric drowns out any more uplifting proposals.
[Read more…]

Gay groups resort to failed strategy on CA marriage initiative

by

It appears that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) have learned nothing from the success of the fourteen state referenda (in the past year) defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Last week, a group of social conservatives led by Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, started raising money and gathering signatures for the “Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative,” a proposed amendment to the California State constitution to define marriage as those states have defined it and to prevent the state from recognizing civil unions. HRC has responded with a press release to announce a fundraising drive to defeat this pernicious proposal using the same language of the failed campaigns to defeat similar initiatives last year.
HRC and NGLTF have teamed up with “more than 200 religious, labor and civil rights organizations” from across the Golden State to form the “Equality for All Coalition.” Last week, I warned that the key to defeating this initiative “is to get beyond the language activists have used in the past.” Alas, from the very name of the group, it appears that these gay groups are resorting to the failed strategies of the past year.
Since more than 60% of California voters favored a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in a 2000 referendum (Prop. 22), I doubt the “marriage equality” language will win a majority in 2006. To defeat this amendment, its opponents need to reach out to some of that 60% who, while they may oppose gay marriage, favor state recognition of same-sex unions (under a different name). Since this proposal would also preclude such recognition, we need to focus on that aspect of the proposal, its most extreme element.
[Read more…]

Deep Throat & the Democrats

by

Just days after I watched a movie (which I had assumed) identified the real Deep Throat of the Watergate scandal, someone else comes forward and claims that he is the real Deep Throat.
As I was preparing a post on the topic, I read James Taranto’s Best of the Web. His thoughts are quite similar to my own:

President Nixon’s fall, after all, was a triumph for liberal Democrats and muckraking journalists–a triumph neither group has managed to equal since. . . . .
Yet consider what has happened in the years since Watergate. The Democratic Party suffered a series of electoral defeats and today is arguably in its weakest position since before the New Deal. During the same period, the press has seen a steady erosion in its public esteem.
This is in part because both the Democrats and the press learned the “lessons of Watergate” too well. The press is constantly seeking the next scandal, and the Democrats and the liberal left have taken to portraying policy disagreements as criminal coverups–the impulse behind both the Iran-contra scandal and the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.

More than thirty years ago, many Democrats, then the majority in both houses of Congress, as well as the mainstream media hated then-President Nixon with the same venom that many today seem to hate President Bush.
[Read more…]

The most thought-provoking movie of the year?

by

Monday night, I saw the movie Crash and can’t stop thinking about it. I have scribbled some notes for a post on the flick, but want that post to be more than a hurried reflection. I will try to get to that Thursday or Friday. Anyway, I’m posting now to encourage you to see the film. This is one of those movies that not only entertains, not only makes us think, but also reminds us what really matters. And like two very different movies I also enjoyed (“LA Story” and “What’s Cooking“) provides insight into LA, my adopted hometown. But, Crash is far more thought-provoking than either of those two excellent films.

Iambe and the power of laughter

by

One of my favorite characters in the myth of Demeter (Greek earth goddess particularly concerned with grains) and Persephone is Iambe, servant to King Celeus and Queen Metaneira of Eleusis. After Hades has abducted her daughter Persephone, Demeter wanders the world in search of her child. In her grief, disguised as an old woman, she sits down in the shade near the Virgin’s Well in Eleusis. When the daughters of the king find the goddess there, they invite her into their home. But, their hospitality cannot cheer her.
According to the “First Homeric Hymn to Demeter” (which I have been reading in this translation), the goddess did not smile, eat or drink until “the perceptive Iambe,/with jokes/and with much clowning around/forced/this sacred lady/to smile,/to laugh,/and to cheer up her spirits. It was she too/who later pleased her/in angry moments.”
Six weeks ago, I noted the power of Ruthless People, a “stupid,” but thoroughly entertaining, comedy. Even the Greeks recognized the great power of laughter. For only Iambe’s jokes and clowning around could cheer the grief-stricken goddess Demeter. So, here’s to Iambe–and the power of laughter.

Remembering fallen heroes on Memorial Day

by

Today on Memorial Day, we remember those heroes who gave their lives so that we might be free. I know that I owe the freedom I enjoy to host this blog, to speak my mind, to those many brave men and women who, over the centuries, fought against those who would deprive us of our liberties — or whose actions threatened the security of this great nation. As the president said on Saturday in his radio address, we “live in freedom because patriots are willing to serve and sacrifice for our liberty.”
At Winds of Change, Joe links to a number of posts honoring our heroes and providing means to support our troops.
Both Powerline and Opinionjournal quote the credo of Sgt. Michael Carlson who was killed on January 24, 2005, in Iraq.
In the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby tells the story of another hero, Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who tucked a live grenade “into his gut” and so saved the lives of fellow Marines fighting with him to root terrorists out of the Iraqi city of Fallujah. (Hat tip: Chuck Muth.)
As the president said today at Arlington Cemetery:

The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines we remember today answered the call of service in their nation’s hour of need. They stood to fight for America’s highest ideals. And when the sun came up this morning the flag flew at half-staff in solemn gratitude and in deep respect.
At our National Cemetery, we receive the fallen in sorrow, and we take them to an honored place to rest. Looking across this field, we see the scale of heroism and sacrifice. All who are buried here understood their duty. All stood to protect America. And all carried with them memories of a family that they hoped to keep safe by their sacrifice.

And we, who cherish our freedom, remember that sacrifice.

Partial victory for the Bush Doctrine

by

I may be a little more sanguine that Roger Simon about the results of yesterday’s elections in Lebanon. Noting the 28 percent turnout in Beirut, Roger concludes that “Lebanon seems somewhat less eager for democracy than Iraq” (where turnout five months ago today was roughly twice that).
I see it as a good sign that in the first elections in this diverse nation “since 1990 to be free of Syrian interference” that the opposition swept all the seats. (To be sure, the candidates on opposition leader Saad Hariri’s list were unopposed in nine of hte city’s 19 seats.)
Many Christians boycotted the elections “because of what they consider to be a lack of representation.” The Times (of London) noted that “These elections are being held under a gerrymandered law, introduced under Syrian tutelage, that favoured Damascus’s allies in parliament.” Hopefully, if the opposition wins a majority in Parliament as it expected, the new government can create districts which more accurately reflect the tiny nation’s diverse population.
Since turnout was so low, this can’t be considered a resounding victory for democracy, but we can certainly cheer the success of the opposition. Before the Iraqi elections in January, opposition parties didn’t fare all that well in elections in any Middle Eastern nation (save Israel). If the opposition wins a majority when the rest of the seats are decided (to be held over the next three Sundays) and there is a peaceful transition to a new government, then these elections will represent one part of this Mediterranean nation’s progress toward democracy. I agree with Jayson at Polipundit that this is another effect of the Bush Doctrine.
And acknowledge as well the wisdom of Roger Simon’s question, “Whoever said this was going to be easy?”

Democrats behaving badly, II

by

Just minutes after 14 Senators worked out a compromise on judicial nominations, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid attempted to kill the nominations of two of the president’s nominees to federal circuit courts:

In the privacy of his Capitol office last Monday night, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked for commitments from six Democrats fresh from the talks. Would they pledge to support filibusters against Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, two nominees not specifically covered by the pact with Republicans?
Some of the Democrats agreed. At least one, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, declined.

If AP has this story right and any of six remaining Democrats who agreed to the compromise have provided such a commitment to the Minority Leader, then it’ would be clear they broke their word–and lost no time in doing so. It would be another piece of evidence confirming that the Democrats are the real extremists on judicial nominations.
If any of the seven Democrats who joined the compromise vote to filibuster the aforementioned judicial nominees, the seven Republicans who joined them in supporting the compromise would the be duty-bound to vote to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations. This time, they could easily show that while they tried to compromise, the Democrats broke their word.
Hat tip: Polipundit.

Some Bush-hatred makes one student “ashamed to be a Democrat”

by

In the interestingly-titled column, “10 reasons not to kill Bush,” for the Oregon Daily Emerald, University of Oregon student Jennifer McBride concludes that the vitriol of some Bush-haters makes her feel “ashamed to be a Democrat:”

I don’t hate President Bush. I dislike a lot of his administration’s choices, but I think he’s a good man doing a difficult job. As a leader, you’re always going to be hated. I am too often shocked by the vitriolic repulsion many people feel for our leader and America in general, especially because the loathing is often poorly informed. I’ve met people on this campus who see America as the worst human rights abuser in the world (unlike the angelic paradise of Cambodia) and people who sway liberal not because they actually know anything about issues but because it’s popular.
Liberalism has to be more than a college fad or a collection of loudmouths whose idiotic comments stir headlines. The rabid dislike some people feel for a man they’ve never even met makes me ashamed to be a Democrat.

While I can’t say that I share Ms. McBride’s politics, I do appreciate her commitment to a liberalism of ideas rather than one of following the crowd or hating the adversary. Let us hope that there are more college students like her–on both sides of the political aisle.
Hat tip: Drudge.

Non!

by

French voters today overwhelmingly rejected the European Union’s constitution. Instapundit offers his thoughts here while Roger Simon offers his commentary here.
UPDATE (05-29-05; 10:15 PST): I pretty much agree with Charging Rhino‘s analysis of the French vote. He is right to contrast the size of the proposed EU constitution and our own founding charter:

The proposed EU constitution runs 575-pages…The US Constitution is about 12 in the same type-face. The British survive without any written constitution forcing tradition and necessity to ride-tandem adjusting to the needs of the people and the nation.

Now, that I’ve whet your appetite, read the whole thing!

Private sector leads the way in offering benefits to gays

by

Two recent HRC press releases show why it is better to trust the private sector than to rely on government to promote policies which benefit gay people. In releases on Wednesday, HRC noted (yet again) the growing number of companies adopting non-discrimination policies and celebrated the end of American Family Association’s boycott of Disney while noting that over 8,000 American employers offer benefits to same-sex partners of their employees.
ExxonMobil shareholders gave what HRC called “record support” to “a shareholder resolution to amend the company’s written equal employment opportunity policy to include the category of sexual orientation.” While HRC indicates that 29.4 percent of shares “were voted in favor of the policy,” HRC doesn’t indicate how many voted against.
It appears however, that this resolution is not binding on the corporation. ExxonMobil is the only Fortune 50 company not to include sexual orientation in its primary non-discrimination policy.” And therein lies the real good news about the private sector. 49 of the 50 largest companies in America have adopted policies protecting gay and lesbian employees from discrimination. HRC notes further that “414 companies in the Fortune 500 — or 83 percent — include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies.”
[Read more…]

In Memoriam Ismail Merchant

by

I just learned via Roger Simon that Ismail Merchant, whom Roger describes as “one of the great producers of our time,” has died. Once again, Roger’s right. Merchant was truly a gifted filmmaker, having produced numerous excellent films including A Room with a View, Howard’s End, The Remains of the Day and, of particular interest to readers of this blog, Maurice.
While Merchant has justly earned many accolades for his work, including four Academy Award nominations, I want to highlight that last-mentioned film, one of the few movies which is actually better than the book upon which it is based. Together with his directing partner, James Ivory, Merchant took E.M. Forster‘s second-rate gay novel and turned it into a first-rate film. The movie touchingly tells the story of a young man (James Whilby‘s Maurice Hall) coming to terms with his sexuality through his feelings for his college friend (the ever-fetching Hugh Grant as Clive Durham).
Maurice ranks as one of (if not the) most sensitive gay films and was produced at a time before gay cinema was in vogue. It took courage to produce such a film at that time, one of the first gay-themed filmed produced by a major production company. A pioneering achievement.
You can read more about Merchant’s many accomplishments on the Merchant Ivory web-page as well as here, here and here. I think a better tribute would be to watch his movies, to appreciate their quality, particularly as they highlight the tension between love and social convention, how they show, through the stories Merchant and Ivory so brilliantly adapted to the screen, why it is better to choose love.
Thank you, Ismail Merchant, for your many high-quality films. And this blogger offers a special word of thanks for the tenderness with which you portrayed gay love in Maurice and how you gave this film, of particular interest to men like me, a universal theme — and one consistent with that of your great body of work. That love is a greater good than social convention. Thank you, Ismail Merchant. May many filmmakers be inspired by your achievements. And may many audiences continue to delight in your work.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Democrats behaving badly

by

Barely three days after the Senate seemed to have resolved the impasse over confirmation of the president’s judicial nominees, the Democratic majority has returned to its obstructionist tactics in forcing a delay of the vote to confirm John Bolton as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Leaders of the minority party claimed that the “White House has stonewalled on information that might prove damaging to Bolton, whose brusque style Democrats said would be ill-suited to U.N. diplomacy. I actually think his brusque style would help the U.N. confront its own corruption and its hesitancy to act against gross human rights violations around the world.
Four of the seven Democrats who hammered out the compromise on judicial filibusters joined all but three of their minority-party colleagues in voted to filibuster Bolton.
The Democrats’ real goal here is to prevent the confirmation of Bolton who enjoys majority support in the Senate–and continues to do after the Senate has considered his nomination for nearly three months.
It has been nearly seven months since the president was decisively reelected to a second term, winning a majority of the popular vote, something only one incumbent Democratic president has done since the Second World War. And he did so as his party increased its majority in the Senate. When Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 and Reagan in 1984, each man’s party respectively lost two seats in the Senate.
It’s time for the Democrats to accept the president’s reelection and stop trying to obstruct his nominees. They’ve had their chance to raise their objections in the Senate — to try to sway the majority Republicans. Even after they have failed to get majority support for their causes, the minority party is engaging in juvenile gamesmanship to limit the president from exercising his constitutional mandate to appoint federal judges — and certain executive branch officials.
[Read more…]

Oppose confirmation of William Pryor to federal bench

by

While I am delighted that the Senate is finally beginning to move on at least a few of the president’s nominees to federal appellate courts, I wish that Senate Democrats had agreed to up-or-down votes on all such nominees. Most are extremely competent jurists who would serve the nation well if confirmed to the federal bench.
There is, however, one nominee whose attitudes towards gays trouble me and whose confirmation I have opposed since I first wrote about the need to break the filibuster on judicial nominees. As Attorney General of Alabama, William Pryor, filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, then before the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting the Lone Star State’s sodomy law. In his brief, Pryor linked “the choice of one’s partner” to adultery, bestiality, incest and child pornography among other things.
To be sure, Pryor has shown an ability to separate his personal opinions from his judicial responsibilities. As Alabama Attorney General, he did take then-Alabama’s Chief Justice to the state’s Court of Judiciary for defying a federal judge’s order to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the state Judiciary Building even though he disagreed with the order. That is, he followed the law even if it was at odds with his personal beliefs.
But, the language of his amicus brief in Lawrence makes me concerned on how he will rule on cases affecting gay people once on the federal bench. I’m not convinced that he will be able to separate his personal views on gays from his judicial responsibilities. Therefore, I join Log Cabin in urging you to contact your Senators and ask them to vote against confirming Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bloch’s beliefs at odds with long-standing policy on nondiscrimination in federal workforce

by

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.

How to defeat proposed CA Marriage Amendment

by

There are times when the tactics of gay activists serve to push back the causes they espouse. Such has been the results of their attempts to push marriage through the courts. And there are times when the tactics of social conservatives push back the causes they espouse. With the proposed “Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative,” a group of social conservatives in California, led by “marriage protection expert” Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, is doing just that.
He has helped organized VoteYesMarriage.com to raise money and gather signatures to put this proposed state constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot in the Golden State.
I fear that if he and his allies had proposed a state constitutional amendment which merely enshrined the definition of marriage in the state constitution, it would win as did the initiative adopting a statute defining marriage did five years ago. But, this time, they have tacked on an additional provision onto their proposed amendment which would prevent the state from “bestowing statutory rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons.” In other words, in addition to defining marriage as the union of one man and one man, they want to prevent the Golden State from recognizing domestic partnerships as well.
California voters may not support gay marriage, but I believe they do support some sort of recognition of same-sex unions. The Advocate reports that coalition has formed to fight the amendment. If this coalition focuses on the sweeping nature of this amendment, that it not merely adds the traditional definition of marriage to the state constitution but also prevents any state recognition of same-sex unions, then they are sure to defeat it. And score a major victory for state recognition of same-sex unions.
[Read more…]