I had someone else read this interview of me first. As she was reading, I kept asking her… “Am I going to be fired?” All in all, I think this is a very fair interview and I’m glad the blog got some ink from my “hometown” gay newspaper.
Out ‘Patriot’ Finds Conservative Audience – Philadelphia Gay News
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com
For full text of story – click on “more”
Out ‘Patriot’ finds conservative audience
Is there room under the virtual rainbow flag for a gay conservative blogger like Bruce Carroll?
The founder of the year-old GayPatriot.net Web log would like to think so.
But over the past year since he’s launched his blog, Carroll has received a much warmer reception from straight conservatives than gays and lesbians.
“I haven’t received one negative e-mail from a conservative blogger,” Carroll said. “As a matter of fact, most of the support I’ve gotten has been from conservative blogs and not gay-specific blogs, which is consistent with my personal experience.
“I’ve been an openly gay Republican for the past 10 to 15 years. I get more hostility from gay liberals than conservative Republicans, and the experience on the blog has been exactly the same.”
Carroll, who lives in northern Virginia, is a founding member of the so-called “23 Percent Club” – a moniker he coined to represent the estimated percentage of gay and lesbian voters who supported President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.
Except for the name of the Philadelphia area native’s blog, though, you wouldn’t necessarily be able to distinguish it from other (straight) conservative sites.
One post urges the “president” to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of the slain solider who is staging a protest outside Bush’s Texas ranch; the punch line is that she should meet with Saddam Hussein. Another post recommends a column on the ’04 election from the right wing The Washington Times, while another urges Americans to “take back” the planned Sept. 11 memorial at Ground Zero.
A few posts reflect Carroll’s gay identity – including one comparing the experience of a Republican in Hollywood to the coming-out process – but the overall tone supports the blogger’s self-view as more than a “one issue” voter.
“I’m a contrarian by nature,” said Carroll, who works in the bio-tech industry. “I may be shrill at times in trying to make a point. I’m trying to make it obvious I’m challenging that conventional wisdom.”
Even though Carroll doesn’t identify with a Democratic-voting, Human Rights Campaign member, and contends the Log Cabin Republicans have steered off course, he doesn’t believe his beloved GOP is doing its best by gay people, either.
“I vote on a host of issues – I’m not a one-issue voter,” Carroll said. “I think there’s more to society than voting on abortion only or taxes only or what not.
“I grew up as a Republican. I believe my party advances policies that are supportive of a free enterprise system. I believe we need to be proactive on the war on terror.
“That’s my stance. Am I disappointed in my president [because of the Federal Marriage Amendment]? Absolutely. Am I disappointed in the rhetoric of the party on [gay] issues? Absolutely. That’s what Log Cabin’s role is.”
Nor does Carroll, who is moving with his partner to Charlotte, N.C., early next year, seem concerned that his current state’s Republican-controlled legislature passed one of the country’s most restrictive bans on same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships.
“I’m moving from Virginia to North Carolina for two reasons – the traffic has gotten phenomenally bad and my taxes are too high,” he said. “Those are two pretty good reasons to move, if I think there is a better environment for the family situation I have, whether it’s gay or straight, that’s the beauty of this country.
“If the taxes are lower in West Virginia, that’s an option I’ll look at. If the domestic-partner laws are better in Massachusetts, that’s an option I’ll look at.”
Even though universal marriage or domestic partner laws would eliminate that part of the decision on where to live, Carroll doesn’t believe the country is ready for same-sex marriage.
“It feeds into our culture, which is instant gratification,” he said. “It’s naive to think we can change laws before we change minds first.”
With that point, Carroll may have more in common with openly gay liberals like Barney Frank than he thinks.
Robert DiGiacomo is a Philadelphia-based writer. “Drag ‘Net” appears biweekly. Send comments to dragnetpgn@aol.com; PGN Web site: www.epgn.com
Congratulations Bruce! 🙂
Nice article. And whoever that picture is, DiGiacomo or Carroll, it looks like Guckert with hair.
LOL… for the record that is the photo of the reporter, not yours truly. 🙂
Congratulations on the great press.
Were you serious about the concern for your job?
Kudos.
What do you think of the last sentece, though?
I anticipate a spike in clueless troll droppings.
Such as this money quote from Bruce in the article?
“I grew up as a Republican.”
Such as this money quote from Bruce in the article?
“I grew up as a Republican.”
Comment by Reader —
=======================
Reader,
Wasn’t that “I grew up a Republican Coal Miner’s Daughter”?
Or am I in the wrong thread?
Good tie-in there Chandler. Wish I’d thought of connecting the two threads. Hey, I’m glad to see SOMEBODY ELSE has a sense of humor here. These boys are way too serious about their chatter. As my Better Half noted the other day, after reading here, “by and large, you wouldn’t even know some of those guys are gay.” And I told him I thought that was the goal of some of them.
Thinking more about the lack of humor here, we should all keep in mind that humor got us gay folk through some really rough decades (and I assume centuries) and I hope we don’t lose that as we assimilate as gay people into general society.
Reader-
But I thought “gay marriage” was assimilation??!! You can’t have it both ways — being a subculture AND in the mainstream.
What is it you want?
Bruce, I don’t think of gay marriage (or whatever they want to call) as an automatic path to complete assimilation, though it will probably accelerate it. Gay assimilation into mainstream society is something that’s been going on for some time, probably starting in the mid-to-late ’80s (some could argue for the 70’s, but I think it was really more the 80s), as a result of so much public focus on gay life because of the number of well-known people connected in one way or another to the AIDS issue (some as victims; some as their advocates). Then, with more and more people living more openly (and not all declaring themselves gay, some just “being gay” – partnered so long, unmarried, non-dating, etc.), straight people started getting used to gay people — you’ve seen the numbers on growing acceptance of gay people among heterosexuals.
As to what I “want”: presumably the same thing you and others who are partnered here want — the 1,049 rights (or at least some of them) which accrue automatically to married people (i.e., heterosexual couples) — as identified by the GAO at the request of Congressmen Henry Hyde, here:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
And Bruce, as I’ve said over and over here, I don’t care what they call this equality — marriage, civil unions, whatever. As long as the full rights come with it, they can call it anything decent. And the full rights will come, you know, Bruce. Do you even doubt it?
Reader-
But I thought “gay marriage” was assimilation??!! You can’t have it both ways — being a subculture AND in the mainstream.
What is it you want?
Comment by GayPatriot
==========================
Bruce,
You are so wrong. In my larger family are doctors, writers, electricians, plumbers, builders, garbage men, and on and on. We are veterans of five wars and have a fair number of Eagle Scouts. You would look at all of us as a fair repreentation of middle America. But get us in church, or together for a family (and I love this word) “doing” and you would think you were in Belgrade. In our homes we are very ethnic.
The same will go for us as gays. We will blend into the greater culture ON OUR TERMS and be as gay as we choose in the subculture.
And the full rights will come, you know, Bruce. Do you even doubt it?
Oh, I don’t think that anyone doubts that the full rights will come eventually. However, what I think they do question is how quickly they will come when the gay left is in such a hurry to sign them away over such unrelated issues as abortion.
Were the gay community able to undo itself from its hatemongering leftist tentacles, we could have equality within the next five to six years. However, as long as leftist puppets like Joe Solmonese, Ellen Malcom, and others who will endorse FMA-supporting candidates as long as they’re pro-abortion are in charge, it’s going to take a while.
NDT, I had hoped the #11 comment wouldn’t inspire the partisanship found in your response. But since you took the subject there once again anyway, I would again remind you that it was YOUR president and YOUR party who tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to forever deny us our rights, and that it took 43 Democratic Senators (joined by 1 Independent and 6 brave Republicans) to block it. A committed GOP partisan above all else, you never acknowledge that. Instead, you always try to pretend that night is day and day is night on this issue and that the party you hold so dear is superior on gay marriage equality. Somehow, this issue dependably brings out the Collaborateura in you.
Reader, I’ve already responded to this in a different form.
I will leave for others to savor the irony of people like yourself protecting and supporting antigay Democrats who vote for the FMA, MPA, and state constitutional amendments — while attacking Republicans who vote against both — calling others “collaborateura”.
Oh, and this also adds more reason to doubt your sincerity when you make statements like this:
And I don’t think (and never meant to imply that) you’re a coward. From your description a while back of your local political activism alone, there’s no way anyone can call you a coward.
NDT, linking to your own site and your re-post of my GP comments there (without permission, I might add) does not qualify as having “responded in a different form”. Nothing you wrote around my words there on your site explains why you so heartily support a party that the rest of the world (beyond GP-land) recognizes as the primary barrier (threat even) to gay rights. So once again NDT: how is the GOP superior to the Democratic Party when it comes to gay issues?
And, so others will know, what NDT is stabbing at in #16 was actually a sincere compliment I paid him, the full quote of which (having nothing to do with NDT’s angst over who’s best on gay issues) was as follows. It related to NDT’s aversion to being characterized as a “chickenhawk” on the war issue and followed his personalized rebuke to me for use of that word — on some days NDT can distinguish between the personal and the political in argument here; other days, well…you see where it gets you.
“NDT, you’re a joy to read, almost every single time. And I don’t think (and never meant to imply that) you’re a coward. From your description a while back of your local political activism alone, there’s no way anyone can call you a coward. And, as to what I really know about you – just from your posts this past year and from the bio at your website, I DO actually know very little (which is the way it should be here). But you’re a good writer and those of us who enjoy good writing can certainly build an image from your words and learn your patterns; in fact, learn enough about your patterns to be able to spot a well-crafted post (#53) designed to bring your opponents to tears. You are VERY good.”
I still think the boy’s a cunning linguist, but on days like today, I’m not so sure about the “joy” part.
Nothing you wrote around my words there on your site explains why you so heartily support a party that the rest of the world (beyond GP-land) recognizes as the primary barrier (threat even) to gay rights.
Actually, Reader, you’ve done a great job of proving my point; namely, that the primary barrier to gay rights is that the “gay rights” groups are run by hatemongering leftists who support candidates and politicians based on things other than gay rights.
For instance, look at your responses.
Nowhere in them does it say that it was wrong for Inez Tenenbaum to support the FMA, or for Joe Solmonese and Ellen Malcom to give her money because of her stances.
Nowhere in them does it say that it was wrong for Mike Rogers to attack Republicans who voted AGAINST the FMA and MPA while protecting Democrats who voted for both.
One would think that if your concern was really the FMA and MPA and the potential loss of rights for gays, you’d be speaking out against people who voted for it and in favor of people who voted against it, regardless of party.
In contrast, as anyone who reads my blog soon learns (search for “Chisum”), while I tend to be more tolerant of Republican positions because I understand the rationale behind them, I’m still quite able and willing to call a spade a spade. Heck, I helped get Lupe Valdez elected as Dallas County Sheriff because she was far more qualified (and FAR less corrupt and homophobic) than the Republican candidate.
You can keep on insisting that “the Republicans” are to blame, Reader. However, I’m far more frightened of antigay politicians like John Kerry and Inez Tenenbaum — and the gay people like yourself who call their support of stripping gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
i googled for something completely different, but found your page… and have to say thanks. nice blog!