As I prepare to depart for New Orlean to attend the Log Cabin National Convention/Liberty Education Forum National Symposium, I wanted to tell y’all why I’m taking the trip. I’m going to see whether or not Log Cabin had really changed, whether it is an organization of gay and lesbian Republicans committed to building their party or an organization of gay and lesbian Republicans dedicated to promoting the agenda of the various “gay rights’” groups in our nation’s capital.

On the one hand, I have been heartened by Log Cabin’s support of some of President Bush’s initiatives, notably Social Security reform. And by its co-sponsorship last month of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). I join Log Cabin in opposing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment — or whatever it’s called in its latest incarnation.

On the other hand, In January, Log Cabin signed on to the Unity Statement of 22 “gay advocacy organizations, thus taking the same positions on gay issues as all of these groups, including such left-wing outfits as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) and the Stonewall Democrats.

This morning, a reader e-mailed me an article from Sunday’s Washington Post where writers Mike Allen and Dana Milbank begin their piece, noting “ The Log Cabin Republicans are looking less and less Republican.” LCR’s rhetoric, particularly on gay issues is virtually indistinguishable from that of other gay groups, notably the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

Looking less like Republicans, repeating the rhetoric of other gay groups, Log Cabin doesn’t seem to be making an effort to put forward a Republican vision of gay issues.

So, I’m traveling to New Orleans to listen and to take notes, to sit in on the panels and to see how this organization — and its affiliated education forum — present themselves. I will be talking to participants and perhaps questioning some of the organizations’ leaders.
(more…)

The New York Times reports today that Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Cheney, “has sold the rights to a memoir to Simon & Schuster for an advance.” According to the Times, Mary said

The first time I campaigned with my father I was 8 years old. . . . I’ve been involved with campaigns as a family member, a staffer, and though I certainly never intended it, as a political target for the other side. It’s been an amazing experience – uplifting, frustrating, educational and always entertaining.

I am looking forward to this book for a number of reasons, particularly to get the perspective this bright woman on campaigning and politics, but also because she will present “a portrait of the vice president different from his public persona.” A longtime fan of the Vice President (long before he became Vice President), I regret that he has gotten a bum rap in the media. Hopefully, this book will correct many of the misperceptions of this good and wise man.

Although he has been savaged by many on the left, including numerous gay activists, the Vice President loves his daughter even as he knows she’s a lesbian. He and his wife have welcomed Mary and her partner into the family, inviting both to sit in their box at the Republican National Convention, up on stage when the president declared victory last November and into VIP seats at the president’s second inaugural just two months ago.

The Times reports further

Mary Cheney’s memoir is first book planned in a new line of titles about conservative politics and current events, overseen by Mary Matalin, a political consultant and close adviser to the Cheney family. Ms. Matalin was not involved in making the book deal, she and others said.

Matalin commented “I am doing a handful of books that reflect the breadth of conservatism today . . . and I think she represents that, and she represents it beyond the narrow casting of ‘she is a gay Republican.’”

This blog welcomes anything which shows the true breadth — and I would add, depth — of American conservatism. Gay conservative bloggers know all too well about the “narrow casting” of those who reduce us to our political label, those who sneer at us when we come out as gay Republicans.

It seems Mary Cheney’s memoir will do much to advance the causes this blog has promoted as it presents a more accurate picture of the Vice President and his family.

I can’t wait until it comes out.

Hat tip: lgbt-politics listserv.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

In a column in today’s OpinionJournal.com, columnist and blogress Bridget Johnson (this blog’s guest at the Ben Stein dinner Monday night) offers some thoughts on Hollywood’s love affair with Che Guevara, noting that after the success of MOTORCYCLE DIARIES, a movie about the revolutionary’s youth, a number of Che-movies are now in production.

Pondering Che’s appeal, Bridget asks, “What feature films have showed the true nature of communism?” Despite the Oscar-winning 1984 film, “THE KILLING FIELDS” which depicted the brutality and mass executions committed by the Communist Khmer Rouge when they took over Cambodia, few Hollywood movies have shown the horrors of communism. Bridget lists a number of nations which suffered (and one which still suffers) under the yoke of Communism, suggesting that each would be a worthy subject for a film.

As she details the crimes of Che Guevara, Bridget notes, that in films depicting the reality of Communism, he would be one of the villains. His legacy includes, among other things, “both ordering and conducting executions and founding forced labor camps.”

Communism may have been built on a noble vision, but it has found its place on “the ash heap of history” because whenever a Communist regime took over a nation, it impoverished that nation’s citizens when it didn’t imprison or kill them. Under communism, there were long lines for the basic necessities of life, neighbor spied upon neighbor and people could be punished for disagreeing with the government, believing in God, or even for being gay. Bridget think it’s time for Hollywood to explore the real nature of this failed system. I agree. So, read the whole thing!

UPDATE: In the comments, Michael Tinker mentions the 2000 film BEFORE NIGHT FALLS which depicted the persecution of a gay man in Castro’s Cuba, “a Che-state.” For his portrayal of writer, Reinaldo Arenas, Javier Bardem garnered an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

As I prepare to depart for New Orleans for the Liberty Education Forum/Log Cabin Convention, I would like to arrange to meet readers of this blog. I will be arriving in the Big Easy Thursday afternoon and expect to be at the Welcome Reception in the hotel. Please e-mail me if you’d like to join me (& other GayPatriot readers) for dinner after the reception. Or just look for me there. I may wear my “George W. Bush for President” button to identify myself.

I am also likely to attend the New Orleans Celebration Friday night and would love to join you all for a drink–and possibly dinner afterwards. Keep an eye on the blog as I expect to be blogging from the convention. Or just e-mail me to let me know you’re attending and I’ll look for you there.

And, if any of you are runners, I will be bringing my running gear and hope to find some time to run along the Mississippi–if it’s at all possible.

Looking forward to seeing some of you in New Orleans.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

I have been deeply touched by the numerous supportive e-mails and Instant Messages I have received from readers of this blog. Since Friday when the controversy broke — and especially since yesterday morning when a number of blogs reported on it — every single e-mail I have received on the topic (that’s right every e-mail) has been positive, even those from a number of readers who have frequently criticized our posts. Social conservatives have sent kind words as well as liberal gay activists.

So, despite a few nasty comments, the support and encouragement I have received from readers has helped keep alive my faith in humanity.

I am delighted that a number of you have expressed the hope that we could persuade GP to start blogging again. I very much want him back on here. I love the way we complement each other.

Thank you all for your kind words of support at a trying time for this blog. It’s because of readers like you that this blog has done as well as it has.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

I have to say that I am surprised at the hostility of some of the responses, largely in the comments, but also in e-mail, to my comments on Terri Schiavo. I acknowledge that it is not an easy case. Indeed, I didn’t have a strong opinion on this issue one way or the other until I started following it while in Cleveland to attend my nephew’s Bar Mitzvah. Then, I began to chance upon some facts which, while they changed me views, didn’t prevent me from understanding the other side.

As I have said before, I believe we should err on the side of life and reinsert the feeding tube. It seems beyond cruel to starve someone to death, far different from turning off a machine keeping a comatose person breathing or keeping her heart beating. (See, for example, this insightful piece by Rabbi Aryeh Spero.)

I wrote my last post on the topic because like Portia in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, I recognize that those who favor removing the feeding tube have a strong legal case. One of the things I remember from law school is the a trial court determines the facts while appellate courts review the law. As I understand it, in this case, the trial court established that were she to be in vegetative state, Terri Schiavo would not want machines to keep her alive.

Her parents and siblings, however, disagree. They believe she would have wanted to be kept alive in such circumstances. And they very much want her to live — even in this state. Powerline noted that Michael Schiavo had better legal representation at the trial court level, and her parents’ attorney was not well equipped to handle such a case. So, despite the parents’ claims, the law is clearly on the side of Michael Schiavo and those who want to remove the feeding tube.

But, given this difference between these two groups of people, each of whom claims to love Terry, I, like the president, believe we should err on the side of life. Like Portia’s plea to spare Antonio (even though the law was against him), I join countless others in asking Michael, as her legal guardian, to show some mercy and turn her over to her parents.
(more…)

Christian Grantham, a genuine nice guy and good friend to this blog, reports that another blogger has been silenced. This time, it’s LimeShurbert, also a friend to this blog. I appreciate LimeShurbert’s support and am delighted that he is determined to be heard. And I am doing everything I can so that I once again have a blog-league — the same good fellow as before.

UPDATE: The silencing was only temporary. As EMT907 notes in the comments, “Lime Shurbert is back with both guns blazing, it would seem.” Yep, he’s back, blogging right here, writing, “I am gay. I am a member of the Republican Party, and I am not going anywhere.” That makes two of us (at least).

And let’s hope that another silenced gay Republican blogger will soon be joining him in returning to the blogosphere.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest,
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes,
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest, it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute of awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings:
But mercy is above this sceptred sway.
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore . . .
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

–William Shakespeare
The Merchant of Venice
Emphasis added.

Render a deed of mercy in Florida. Err on the side of life. Reinsert the feeding tube and let Terri Schiavo live.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Just returned from the Log Cabin of LA dinner featuring one of my favorite celebrities, Ben Stein, and realized that, in many ways, I am a Ben Stein Republican. It was a great event and we had an amazing table, where I was joined by a screenwriting pal of mine and his wonderful fianc?e, Dirty Harry (one of my favorite bloggers, now at Jackson’s Junction), LA Daily News Columnist and new blogger Bridget Johnson, a blog reader, BoifromTroy and my date (who happens to be a Democrat).

I thoroughly enjoyed meeting Boi, Dirty Harry, Bridget, our reader and my friend’s fianc?e, none of whom I had met before. All of whom helped make the conversation at our table insightful and scintillating.

But, the highlight of the evening was Ben Stein who, simply put, gave a great speech. More than a great speech, an ideal after-dinner speech. Following a meal sponsored by a group we support, we have all been subject to a speech that goes on too long where the speaker merely pastes the name of the organization he (or she) is addressing into some canned remarks.

Not so with Ben Stein. He kept his remarks short and looked at the audience more than at his notes. He addressed his remarks to this group of gay Republicans, talking to us as if we were friends. He started off by telling a number of very funny (mostly political) jokes, then moved on to offer a short summary of why he’s a Republican. He concluded by offering a touching tale of his parents’ final days.
(more…)

As I was tidying my desk last night, I came across an old note I had scribbled on the back on an envelope. The envelope was postmarked February 14, so I must have written the note just over a month ago. In the note, I had observed that, in the wake of the 2004 elections, like John Kerry, gay leaders claim that if only they had changed their message, they would have gotten a more positive response in the “red” states. I realized that this was one of those notes which was as valid today as it was when I first scribbled it.

I had wondered then — as I do now — whether or not the language of the advocates of gay marriage had changed at all in the wake of the 13 state referenda (11 in November, 2 earlier in the year) in 2004 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus precluding gay marriage.

Just as I don’t think that John Kerry would have won last year had he had a “better message,” I don’t think that changing the message will be enough to defeat proposals in a growing number of states to amend their constitutions to preclude same-sex marriage. It’s not just semantics which cause many Americans to oppose gay marriages.

That said, advocates of gay marriage must do as Jonathan Rauch has done in the first chapter of his book, Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America and talk about what marriage is for. But, we also need to understand why, in the wake of growing tolerance for gay and lesbian citizens and growing support for civil unions, over 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage. (At the same time, most polls seem to show that a plurality of Americans oppose amending the federal constitution to define marriage.)

Instead of casually dismissing the arguments of social conservatives, gay marriage advocates need to take them seriously, understand that many see their arguments as scripturally based, some going to the very first chapter of the Bible where we read that “God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female” (Genesis 1:27). That is, they see marriage as a union of two people from different genders, not merely as a lifelong partnership between two loving individuals who have committed to the mutual welfare of each other.

Those who want to change the message have made a valid point. We do need to change the message. As I have said before (e.g., here and here, instead of using the terms “rights” and “equality” when talking about marriage, we need to talk about the issue as most Americans do, using such words as “values,” “commitment” and “responsibility.” But, we also have to consider the arguments of those who are making a scriptural case against gay marriage.

In short, we need to take seriously their religious arguments, to understand how they define their faith — and how they see it as essential to the survival of a free and civil society.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

As I learned this morning upon logging on, a number of bloggers have picked up on my blog-league’s departure. Our pal Christian Grantham has commented here. Little Green Footballs, the Washington Blade, Stolen Thunder and Polipundit, Dirty Harry and Patriots for Bush have also weighed in. I have even been told that Andrew Sullivan mentioned it.

I understand that my former blog-league has been in contact with attorneys.

For the record, I will say no more than that and will appreciate that people not ask me about it, especially when I am in New Orleans later this week for the Log Cabin convention. In fact, I don’t know all that much myself.

I appreciate the good wishes that many of you have extended to me as I continue this blog and the support you have expressed for GP. He’s a good guy and I’m honored to call him a friend. So, again, out of respect for that friendship, please do not ask me to comment any more on this controversy.

I am determined to keep this blog going, a voice for those gay and lesbian conservatives whose voices are too often ignored in the MSM and frequently silenced by the Gay Street establishment.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

I was as surprised as you were to learn yesterday that my blog-league would be unable to continue blogging.

When Instapundit first linked me to this blog, I had never even met him. We began a correspondence and soon he invited me to join the blog — for which I am eternally grateful. It has given me the chance to share my views with a growing readership. And to help provide a voice for nearly one-quarter of gay and lesbian Americans whose views are often drowned out by the “gay establishment.”

I got to meet GP and his partner last fall when they passed through Los Angeles on their way to Australia. They are both wonderful people. I am honored to call GP a friend. While I am saddened that we will no longer be blogging together, I am grateful that our friendship will continue.

I will truly miss blogging with him. While it is often uncanny how similar our ideas are, we have very different blogging styles. I liked the way we complemented each other, he far wittier than I and maybe a tad more polemical while I strive to be philosophical, reflective. I believe that balance accounted for the rapid growth of our readership.

Now, as a solitary blogger, I know this blog will not be able to cover as much as it did. I will continue to press the points that we have been making — as well as to consider other issues of interest to me.

To those of you who complain that we don’t take on social conservatives as much as you think we should, please note that we only have a limited amount of time to blog. And often I try to cover angles which I don’t see covered on other blogs, particularly other gay blogs, but also other conservative blogs.

I will do my best to blog regularly, but please understand that with grad school and other obligations, I may not be able to post as often as I would like. And given the upcoming Log Cabin convention which I will be attending in New Orleans as well as my grad school work, blogging may be light in the next couple of weeks.

As always, I welcome your comments and your e-mails and will strive to answer every e-mail I receive and, as time permits, join in the comment threads to my posts.

As grateful as I am to my former blog-league for giving me this opportunity, I am also grateful to you, our readers, for reading our posts and engaging me. Especially to those of you who have written to encourage me after yesterday’s announcement. I know many of you join me in wishing GP well. I look forward to building upon the legacy that he began.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

For personal and professional reasons that I am unable to fully discuss, I have to stop blogging as GayPatriot effective immediately. This has been a great experience for me and I have learned a lot. And I have met a lot of good people along the way (if only through email). As of this moment, I am no longer affiliated with this blog and I turn over all control to GayPatriotWest who will keep the fires going. Thank you for letting me come into your homes since last September. It has been an honor.

In the interest of constructive political discourse and open and free discussion, GayPatriot.org and those responsible for its content always urge its readers to practice non-violence in their daily lives and political activities.

No posting on this site shall be construed as advocating for violence against anyone or any organization.

I love peace.

According to the Agape Press (hat tip: townhall.com), a few social conservatives fear

the city of Jerusalem will be subjected to “a moral outrage” if a planned 10-day event known as WorldPride 2005 goes forward as planned. If it does take place, the event will bring some 250,000 homosexuals to the holy city in a celebration of their lifestyle.

Mike Evans, founder of Jerusalem Prayer Team, believes that that event organizers are staging the event in Jerusaelm to make a “provocative statment.” In an attempt to prevent the holy city from “being desecrated by homosexuals,” his group is trying to gather one million signatures to convince Israel to stop the event.

Mr. Evans fears that “holding WorldPride 2005 in Jerusalem would lead to the worst debauchery the Middle East has seen since the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.” If Mr. Evans read his Bible, he’d realize that the crime of the people of Sodom was the way they treated strangers. Instead of welcoming Lot’s guests (the two angels) into their community, the Sodomites demanded to have their way with them (Genesis 19:5-9). They were not a hospitable people. And in an age and culture which valued hospitality.

It seems, however, that the City of Jerusalem has chosen to be hospitable to WorldPride 2005.
(more…)

As our nation is transfixed with the fate of Terry Schiavo, political consultant and GOP activist Chuck Muth writes

When thoughtful debate and disagreement on an issue takes place, it’s almost ALWAYS among conservatives themselves.

As conservatives debate the appropriateness of congressional action, Muth notes that it is is:

A difficult question. A complicated question. A serious question. And not surprisingly, Democrats have been pretty much left out of the debate. No one really cares what they think. This intellectual and constitutional battle over the Schiavo matter is taking place almost exclusively among those on the right, with bona-fide card-carrying limited-government types finding themselves on opposite sides of the issue.

Chuck quotes a number of conservatives who have weighed in on the issue. And I recommend his piece. (You may need to click on “Opinion Columns” and then on “Brain-Dead Politics on the Left.”)

In addition, Hugh Hewitt has a good piece on the topic here (and has been blogging about it regularly) while Peggy Noonan, the conservative Athena, has penned two excellent pieces here and here.

UPDATE: On his blog Gay Orbit, reader Michael links to an interesting piece by Neil Boortz on Terri Schiavo. I join Michael in encouraging you to read the whole thing. I don’t exactly agree with Boortz’s argument, but he makes some valid points and in doing so, confirms Chuck Muth’s argument in the piece above–the serious debate on this issue is largely on the right.

This morning, as most mornings, I flip on FoxNews, make a pot of coffee and go downstairs to get my “LA TIMES.” I used to place that paper in the middle of my desk so that I could get to it as soon as my coffee was ready, but now I just drop it on a stack of papers to the side of the desk. On most days, it sits there untouched until I take it out to recycle at the end of the day.

As I was beginning the day, Fox was airing live the news conference of Michael Schiavo’s attorney (hardly a conservative he). I flipped the TV off as one of Fox’s commentators was about to question a supporter of Mr. Schiavo. Although I was interested in his opinion, I needed to get to work.

Later, in the day, it occurred to me that despite the liberal canard that Fox presents only a slanted conservative view on the news, I realized that, like this morning, that supposedly right-wing network often invites thoughtful, articulate liberals to present their opinions on a variety of issues. Liberal Alan Colmes more cogently presents his point of view than does his conservative colleague Sean Hannity. (And more often than not I agree with Hannity.) New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, one of the smartest Democratic elected officials, is a frequent guest on Fox programs. Before U.S. troops liberated Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, Mike Farrell made an intelligent case on FoxNews against the war in Iraq.

For all the liberal bellyaching about Fox, the reality is that while, yes, it does have a conservative slant, it also gives fair hearing to liberal points of view. More often it seems than the “big three” networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) give to conservative points of view. And more often than my now-usually-untouched “LOS ANGELES TIMES” gives to right-of-center viewpoints. Just like Roger Simon, “with the Internet beckoning, most mornings my copy of the LAT sits on my doorstep, only to be taken in as an afterthought, if at all.” Only in my case, I do remove it from the doorstep, only to have it sit unread on top of a stack of papers until it comes time to recycle. Well, that is, unless I need to find out what movies are playing at the multiplexes and art houses near me.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Um… apparently the pro-democracy protestors in Kyrgyzstan go to the gym a lot…

Revolution in Kyrgystan – FOXNews.com

I know this is old news by now….but I’ve had a rough week of travel and I’m just catching up on things. Since I had posted about this story originally, I figured it was only fair to close the loop! (Hat tip: GP Reader Keith)

Bishop Sorry For Denying Gay’s Funeral Rites – FOX News.com

Rex Wockner has a column today published on 365gay.com regarding the recent flurry of speculation about the sexuality of CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

The Wockner Wire (Out Goes on an Outing) – 365gay.com

If it were true that he is gay, Anderson Cooper would be one of the most high profile gay men in America and could serve as a positive role model for young men and women who are questioning their sexuality. I have a feeling Anderson is also a closet Republican, which would make things even more interesting….but that’s not where I want to go with this today.

Instead, let’s focus on how Rex viewed the situation after OUT Magazine had Anderson on its front page openly questioning his gayness.

“Rex, thanks for your note,” he responded. “I’m in Beirut right now. I’m just not interested in talking about my private life. Thanks.”

I don’t think you can argue with that. If Bill Clinton would have said exactly those words, the world might be a different place today.

Interesting. So it is okay for a member of the Mainstream Media to decide to come out on his own terms, or avoid the subject altogether. But what about the outing witchhunt going on against conservatives (elected and non-elected) by Michael Rogers? What a double standard.

One could use the exact same arguments against Anderson Cooper that Rogers has used against Ken Mehlman for example. Neither make public policy, but both can help positively influence it. So why the pass for Anderson but the unhealthy obsession and hate against Mehlman? I have no idea if either of them are gay. But if either of them are, I stand by my belief that both should be allowed to come out on their own terms…. or not come out at all.

Why do left-wing gay terrorists have the power now to decide who is worthy of protecting and who has to be cast out to the wolves with no regard for their family and personal lives? Why, because the left-wing Gay Streeters at HRC and NGLTF are allowing it to happen. It is a disgrace.