If you think business travel is glamorous…. you are wrong and probably haven’t done much of it. I was up for 21 hours yesterday for work, much of it involving air travel or waiting to fly.

I woke up at 3:30am Monday morning to catch a 6:10am flight at Dulles Airport in Virginia, bound for Okaloosa Regional Airport in Florida (think Panhandle). On the Dulles-Atlanta leg (Delta Flight 748 to be exact), there was a bit of an issue surrounding an Arabic gentleman sitting in the exit row across the aisle from me. I know he was Arabic because he was reading a book with Arabic text. You see, you have to speak fluent English to sit in the exit row in order to handle instructions and give out orders in the case of emergency.

When first asked by the female flight attendant if he spoke English, his response was “a little bit.” The flight attendant rightly said he would have to move and she began looking for another seat for him. He grumbled but didn’t put up much of a fight. But the male flight attendant got all “PC” and pulled the female flight attendant back behind the wall where they discussed the situation.

Suddenly she came back and asked the Arabic-reading man a couple more questions where he was able to answer perfect English. So to err on the side of political correctness, and not on the side of terrorism-protection, the Delta flight attendants sided with the Arabic-speaking man. Interesting. Meantime, last June, I was accused of “being a threat” when I complained to the captain of an American Airlines flight about the lack of communication passengers were receiving on a seriously delayed flight and being trapped on the plane with no water. Go figure. White guys never win.

Now what if the new al-Qaeda strategy involved bringing down planes by reaching over in mid-air and pulling out the emergency exit doors on the wings? I nearly got up and said something to the flight attendant to complain about my safety. And I probably should have. But instead I kept my eye on the man the whole way.

******

After a day in the field in Destin, Florida, I headed back Monday afternoon for a flight back (through Atlanta again) to Charlotte, NC. In Atlanta, Delta Flight 636 to Charlotte made an extraordinarily slow taxi all the way up to the end of the runway where the other planes were lined up. We were about 5th from takeoff when the pilot announced a probe wasn’t working and we were headed back to the gate. The trip all the way out to the runway and all the way back took over one and a half hours! Why didn’t they know the equipment wasn’t working BEFORE the long journey away from the gate began? Perhaps it was so we could leave the gate for an “on time” departure?

After switching planes, I finally arrived in Charlotte at my hotel at 1:00am this morning.

I’m tired and cranky today.

A hearty PatriotWelcome to a new member of our GayPatriot extended family. GayandRight hails from Ottawa in the land of our neighbors to the north. I would imagine that being gay and conservative in Canada is probably more frustrating at times than being in the USA. Just a hunch.

Welcome G&R… and nice posting today on the media bias toward John Kerry in last year’s election.

While in Cleveland for the Bar Mitzvah of one of the PatriotNephewsWest (hence the light blogging), the eldest PatriotBrotherWest (the one who lives in Cleveland) alerted me to an article in Cleveland?s Plain Dealer Newspaper. According to that journal, Ohio counted 78% of its provisional ballots. Including Alaska (97% of its provisional ballots counted), Ohio was one of only six states (the others being Oregon, Washington, Nebraska and Colorado) which counted more than 75% of their provisional ballots.

Barbara Boxer could not be reached for comment.

Since GP regular Frank IBC has repeatedly joked about the courts eventually allowing “sheep marriage”, I thought it was only appropriate to post this interesting article (hat tip: BoiFromTroy)

Football player caught with stolen sheep – Boston.com

The 200-pound ram lives at the university’s Sheep Center, and is part of a study on homosexuality in sheep, said Sheep Center manager Tom Nichols.

“At this point they’re just going to deal with it internally,” Fenk said. “I don’t know if it’s going to affect spring practice.”

Uh, I’m pretty confident his teammates will at least “deal with it” internally. Heh.

In what has become more the norm than not, my personal investment in the NCAA Road to the Final Four has come to an abrupt end.

The Syracuse Orangemen (#4 seed) were shocked last night by the 13th-seeded Vermont Catamounts. What the hell is a Catamount anyway? Not that our mascot doesn’t look very dopey too. *grin*

I’m confident that the Syracuse alumni email discussion board will be buzzing today with calls to get rid of hapless coach Jim Boeheim. Yes, he wins a lot of games. Yes he does have a (translation: ONE) National Championship under his belt. But man he sure does have a knack for coaching a team each year that chokes in the first or second rounds of the NCAA tournament!

I guess I’ll tune back in when it is down to the Final Four. Ugh!

Heh heh. No, but you wouldn’t be surprised if he looked like this someday would you? (Hat tip: Fashion Victims Hit Lisbon Runway — Via Drudge)

BoiFromTroy has the scoop here.

From BFT’s post…

Now I am no expert on theology, but it seems hypocritical for a church that protects from the law, ordains and buries known (often same-sex) child molestors (i.e. its own clergy) would deny a rite to a member of the faith. My understanding is that a man’s faith is between him and his deity(ies) and that we should “judge not lest we be judged”.

In a previous piece, I wrote that, “when state courts define marriage as gay activists want it defined, citizens of the various states and their elected representatives respond by . . . . codifying the traditional definition of marriage.” Yet, one gay scholar has decided that San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer who held the California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional was merely “following the political branches of state and local government, not leading them.”

To come to such a conclusion, this scholar, law professor William B. Rubenstein, defines state laws on marriage not as the legislature passed them, but as he wants the legislature to have passed them. To be sure (as Mr. Rubenstein notes), the California legislature has granted a number of privileges to same-sex unions. And I commend our legislators for that. But, despite Mr. Rubenstein’s wishes, our elected representatives never defined those unions as marriage.

Mr. Rubenstein suggests that the apparent views of a majority of the state legislature are more important than the actual votes of the people:

It is true that Judge Kramer declared a ballot initiative enacted by the state’s voters unconstitutional. But that ballot initiative was not supported by voters in the Bay Area, and it does not appear to align with the views of a majority of the Legislature in Sacramento.

The state legislature never voted for gay marriage. But, it appears to Mr. Rubenstein that they want it. (Especially since voters in the most liberal region in the state opposed a state initiative precluding gay marriage.) Finding an appearance of non-alignment between the views of the state legislature and the views of a majority of the state’s citizens (in an actual election), Rubenstein thus justifies Judge Kramer’s decision (overturning the initiative passed by that majority). (Kind of sounds like those Democrats who believe John Kerry beat the president because the exit polls said he did.)
(more…)

This is the fourth in a series of postings from my February 4th interview with Log Cabin Republicans President, Patrick Guerriero.

Link here for Part One, Part Two and Part Three.

The third posting dealt with the question, “do you now regret spending the million dollars on the ad campaign against President Bush a year ago?” Patrick’s quick answer to that was:

Not for a single second. I believe that in the course of my life ? and I?ve in public life for over ten years now, almost 15 — it was probably singularly one of the smartest things we ever did ? for a couple reasons.

I pressed further with this topic which is the fourth installment of the interview….

GayPatriot: What have been some of the negative consequences you?ve had to deal with as a result of the million dollar ad campaign last year [opposing President Bush?s stance on the Federal Marriage Amendment]?
(more…)

Whoa… here’s an eye opening poster displayed in the Newtown section of Sydney, Australia. Hat tip – Romeo Mike’s.

The poster reads:

“As the US government prepares new wars with its threats to Iran, what are the prospects for struggle against the US war machine both within Iraq, and with the international anti-war movement?”

The sad part is, I could easily imagine this on a pole in Dupont Circle ahead of some nutty anti-war rally in DC this spring. The anti-war crowd is afraid of US power because they don’t believe in democracy. Their factions either believe in anarchy or at its seemingly polar opposite — rule by a strong central government (communism/dictatorship).

It is too bad that President Bush and John Howard have to fight the forces of evil within their own nations as well as enemies abroad.

UPDATE: Meantime, in Beirut yesterday…

Unlike the Hezbollah demonstrators with their chants of “Death to America,” many in the crowd were friendly to Americans. “Thank’s Free World,” (sic) said one poster, held high by a woman in a bright red jacket, Rawya Okal, who told me: “We thank Mr. Bush for his position.” Overhearing this in the throng, a middle-aged man in a green baseball cap, Louis Nahanna, leaned over to say, “We love the American people” – adding, “Please don’t let Bush forget us. Your support is very important.”

Asking more people what they thought of Americans turned up the same refrain. From a young driver, Fadi Mrad, came the message: “We want to change. We need freedom. Please don’t let Bush forget us.” From a group of young men came not only the message “Our hope is America,” and “We believe in democracy in the Middle East,” but also praise for Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. There was also an invitation from one of them, young Edgard Baradhy, for his heroine, Ms. Rice, to come to Beirut “and I am ready to take her for coffee.”

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!

In case you missed this. Kind of makes the gay marriage tit-for-tat arguments here seem a bit trivial when our brethren under oppressive Islamic-controlled regimes are facing death.

Saudis Behead Gay Couple – 365Gay.com

Remember, this is a war we are fighting. You are either with us or against us. President Bush has liberated two oppressively anti-gay regimes and has helped stoked the fires of democracy across the whole region.

Remember this story the next time you see a rainbow flag popping up in an anti-war demonstration here in the USA.

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%

As first reported here at GayPatriot on March 2nd (via Sports Illustrated), Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has butched it up and made-over five of the World Series Champion Boston Red Sox.

Full story here from Canada.com – March 15, 2005

Following this unique makeover, perhaps the Fab Five will be using a new technique when they see a straight guy who is beyond repair…

The Red Sox may even have helped the Fab Five.

“They’re teaching us how to spit,” Kressley said.

Although I’m in the middle of three days of intense classes in Mythological Studies, because of my blog-league’s nudge, I burn the midnight oil to weigh in on San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling that the Golden State’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Since reading the article on the web (when returning to my hotel room from classes), I have had the chance to scan a number of press releases and read a number of posts (from gay bloggers) on the topic. All seem to be reveling in the decision.

Well, I would rather be the bearer of good news. But, I believe that this joy is misplaced. This is the decision of one judge who sits in perhaps the most liberal big city in the United States. Although he was appointed by a Republican Governor, from what little I have read about him, he does not sound like a conservative jurist.

The case will likely be overturned on appeal. And if it’s not appealed, opponents of gay marriage will certainly be able to gather enough signatures to put an amendment on the California ballot to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Five years ago this month, Californians overwhelmingly voted to so define gay marriage, but the provision they passed was not a state constitutional amendment.

So far, not one state legislature has passed a law extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Nor have voters in any state approved such a definition of marriage. Indeed, in every state where they’ve had the chance to vote on provisions limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, they have passed such provisions overwhelmingly. Even in such “blue” states as Oregon, California and Michigan.
(more…)

Just picking this up now after a long day of work away from the ‘puter.

Judge Says Calif. Can’t Ban Gay Marriage - AP News

Here’s the roundup from some good bloggers on the topic….BoiFromTroy,
ChristianGrantham, and GayOrbit.

I don’t have anything unique to add, so I’ll leave it for now. When I have some time to write tomorrow, I may discuss further. I’m sure my West Coast blogger pal, GPW, will weigh in at some point.

Although Education Secretary Margaret Spellings faulted PBS for spending public money on an episode of the network’s “POSTCARDS FROM BUSTER” series where an animated rabbit travels to the Green Mountain State and meets two lesbian couples, the “LA TIMES” reports this morning that “54 of PBS’ 349 stations (representing the major urban markets and 55% of U.S. households) decided to air the episode anyway.” (Link requires subscription to the Times and registration.) At the same time, gay and lesbian activists across the country are mobilizing to hold screenings of “SUGARTIME,” the episode in question.

This proves my point that despite the Education Secretary’s pandering to social conservatives by singling out this one episode, there has been no censorship here. In our current media market with hundreds of networks (and network affiliates) and thousands of outlets, when the government stops funding something, more often than not, a private media source will step in.

When social conservatives fault something in the media for gay content, they only end up making gay people, who otherwise might not have heard of the program, aware of it. This also applies when religious leaders speculate about the sexuality of animated or costumed TV personalities.

Instead of censoring the “SUGARTIME” episode of “POSTCARDS FROM BUSTER,” by questioning federal funding of the episode, Ms. Spellings has helped promote it.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) plans to screen the episode at events nationwide. According the Times, one of HRC’s “goals is to move gay and lesbian issues from the political arena to the personal.” Sounds good to me. Just so long as they don’t do it with government money.

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

In the wake of President Bush’s reelection with Republicans increasing their majorities in both of Houses of Congress, many on the gay left talk as if we are entering a new dark age for homosexuals. Otherwise sensible gay writers warn of censorship and increased discrimination while an openly gay Democratic legislator compares a proposed state constitutional amendment to slavery, lynchings and forced migrations.

At the same time, we see striking advances made for gays in our culture. Movies and television shows routinely feature gay characters and subplots. Connecticut is set to be the third state to recognize same-sex civil unions. The number of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partnership benefits and including sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies continues to increase. And all these things are happening during a Republican administration with Republican majorities in Congress and a more conservative federal judiciary.
(more…)

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.

Today, I am inaugurating a new topic, “Gay P.C. Silliness.” Under this topic, we will blog on actions or statements where gay writers, activists or leaders make absurd comments in their pursuit of “gay rights” or in their consideration of the position of gays in contemporary society. Please feel free to e-mail us linking us to some of the silly comments you find. Perhaps, we will find some suitable way to honor the person who comes ups with the silliest case of gay political correctness.

The inaugural post on this topic is about a word heretofore unknown to me–heteronormative–which one web-site defines as “Those punitive rules (social, familial, and legal) that force us to conform to hegemonic, heterosexual standards for identity. The term is a short version of “normative heterosexuality.” So, amused was I by the story I relate below that I googled heterormative and came up with more than 35,000 hits.

Last week, I read on OpinionJournal’s Best of the Web about a group of gay students at Harvard upset that actress Jada Pinkett Smith made heteronormative comments, narrowly defining “the roles of men and women in relationships.” Apparently, “some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.” Oh no! A straight woman talking about heterosexual relationships!
(more…)

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