In just over twenty-four hours, shortly after President Bush delivers the State of the Union address, Timothy M. Kaine, the new Democratic Governor of Virginia will delivered “his party’s response.” Although this Democrat signed a bill calling for a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban state recognition of gay marriage in the Old Dominion, gay leaders have largely been silent about the Democrats’ choice of Kaine. They have not faulted Democrats for tapping such a man nor have they even faulted him for supporting this measure.

And unlike Connecticut’s Republican Governor Jodi Rell, who signed a bill into law recognizing same-sex civil unions in the Nutmeg State, the Virginia Democrat opposes civil unions. Indeed, while the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) faulted California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenengger in multiple press releases for his veto of a bill which would have recognized same-sex marriage in the Golden State, the only reference on HRC’s web-site to Kaine’s support of his state’s amendment resolution was a Washington Post article on the Virginia referendum that they posted here.

HRC accused California’s Republican Governor, more open to state recognition of same-sex unions than his Virginia Democratic counterpart, of putting “politics over people.” (Schwarzenegger has publicly endorsed the state’s domestic partnership program. Not only that, last year, he signed five gay-friendly bills.) Yet, their silence on Kaine suggests that they believe Democrats never put politics over people. No wonder HRC removed the word bipartisan from its Mission Statement.

(more…)

About ten years ago, in their very smart book, Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, Chris Bull and John Gallagher wrote, “Religious conservatives and gay activists have become perfect enemies, propelling each other’s movement and affecting the politics of the country as a whole.” As perfect enemies not only are the “remarkably alike in their tactics,” as those writers observe, but remarkably alike as well in their obsession with gay sex. Social conservatives have accused gay people of engaging in sexual behavior that I did not know existed until I read their attacks on our community. Some gay activists write openly about their sex lives (in blogs and columns) and get all worked up about perceived threats to their sexual freedom.

It thus should perhaps not have surprised me to read the last question Bruce C. Steele asked Peter Shalit about his father Gene’s review of Brokeback Mountain in an interview published in the February 14, 2006 Advocate. Recalling how the elder Shalit described Jack Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist as a “sexual predator” in that flick, Steele wondered if it was “possible that even though your father loves you, his review reflects his deep-seated disgust with gay sex?” To this strange question, the younger Shalit delivered the perfect response, “I don’t know. What does any straight person think of gay sex?”

As this is not the first time that I have read a gay writer ascribe straight people’s prejudices (or perceived prejudice) to a disgust with gay sex, I wondered why so many gay activists are obsessed with what straight people think about our sex lives. I have many straight and lesbian friends and we very rarely talk about each other’s sex lives. Perhaps if I really thought about some of the things they do, I might be disgusted. But, so what? I’m not going to like my friends any less because of what they do — or what I perceive they do — in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

The bottom line should not be whether or not people “approve” of what we do in our bedrooms, but that they allow us the freedom to do those things. With his question, Mr. Steele seems a perfect reflection of social conservatives who delight in pointing out some of the things we do (or are alleged to do) in the privacy of our own homes. On the one hand, some gay activists are concerned that straight people might be disgusted by such actions. On the other, social conservatives want straight people to be so disgusted.

And then there are those of us, quite possibly the great majority of gay people — and hopefully of straight people as well — who don’t really concern ourselves with the sexual behavior of other people (providing of course they’re not molesting children or violating unwilling adults). If straight people accept us as we are, inviting us and our dates into their homes, just as they would invite other straight people (and their dates) into their homes and not holding our difference against us, then we needn’t concern ourselves about whether or not they’re disgusted with gay sex. Because I’m sure that most of them aren’t wondering what we think about straight sex.

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

I have more exciting news about our expanding GayPatriot family. This week we have a special “Revolving BlogPatriot” who will be covering Super Bowl XL activities from Detroit, Michigan.

(drum roll)

It is none other than Mike, a.k.a. “republic of m“. Here’s a brief bio of Mike that he sent to me earlier today.

I am Mike and I am a Michigander thru and thru. Born and raised in the Flint area (yes in the same area that Michael Moore grew up. No one likes him there either), I have lived in Metro Detroit since 2000. I attended the University of Michigan, where I double majored in History and Anthropology. I was briefly married (yes to a woman, I know it was a mistake), but I am actually gay, and currently single – I know this isn’t a personals ad, but hey you never know. I am 31 and love anything and everything about politics, which is why I started RepublicOfM.com (feel free to visit). If you would like to know anything else, my e-mail address is in the sidebar to your right.

Welcome Mike, and we are looking forward to his reports from the Motor City during this Super Week. (With photos to come, too!!)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Back when I used to read Andrew Sullivan’s blog regularly, that is, before 2/24/04, the transformative date in his political life, I appreciated that he was able to praise as well as criticize President Bush. (I did not read him much prior to 2003 when I understand he was often a gusher of admiration for the president he now reviles.) He hailed the president for his leadership in the War on Terror, yet at the same time, took him to task for having difficulty firing officials who were derelict in their duties. (I am grateful to Andrew for drawing my attention to this flaw of the president — which I might not have noticed had I not read his blog.)

Before 2/24, Andrew showed that one could support a leader even while disagreeing with some of his policies. What makes his transformation which James Taranto calls “one of the oddest, and saddest, stories on the World Wide Web over the past few years,” particularly sad to gay conservatives is not only that he had been the first prominent openly gay, conservative pundit, but that he had also been a kind of role model, even a “poster boy,” for us. He wrote well, indeed still writes well, spoke well and made solid arguments. He could not easily be pigeonholed.

Many conservatives looked up to him and saw a smart gay man who did not let his sexuality define his politics. In many cases, it allowed them to see gay people in a different light, no longer as individuals who change their politics as soon as they come to terms with a sexual orientation which differentiates us from the social norm, but as complex individuals who make political decisions pretty much as everyone else does, by balancing a number of concerns.

Thus, when the blogger who once held a nuanced view of President Bush shifted so completely when the president, on February 24, 2004, announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (which, like Andrew, I also oppose) Andrew, as the most prominent gay conservative, made it seem, for a moment, that, unlike most people, gay conservatives would let one issue so completely change their view of a man they had once praised.

With that as introduction, perhaps you can see how Andrew came to mind as I finished up my post yesterday on Tom Coburn. (And even before Bruce posted his piece about being fit, like Andrew, with a CPAP mask to help him breathe better at night!) If we were to judge the Oklahoma Republican, as Andrew has judged President Bush, letting his view on one gay issue, cause us to change our political views altogether, we would fail to appreciate those aspects of the politician we would otherwise have admired. As I noted in the post, Coburn has taken the lead in opposing earmarks and in standing up for fiscal restraint — to the great delight of many of my favorite conservative bloggers and pundits.

(more…)

Is this all you need to know?

For the click-averse, here are a couple pictures in case you were wondering what America’s favorite maternal embarrassment has been up to (with apologies to V the K):

UPDATE: Now I remember what this reminds me of:

Was Dan’s humorous suggestion over a year ago actually a sad prophecy? (Is GayPatriot the new Andrew Sullivan?) And yes, that’s what the “original” GayPatriot site used to look like! LOL

Well, gang I hope this isn’t one of the seven signs of the End of Gays for me! Last night I went to my second visit to a sleep lab here in Charlotte to stop my excessive snoring (8 out of 10 scale!) and possible apnea. And, like Andrew, I too was fitted with a CPAP mask that will help me breathe better at night, stop the snoring, and help with the apnea. Andrew looked something like “Hannibal on oxygen” when he showed off his device on CNN.

Frankly I do not think I will allow a camera, much less one with live broadcasting capabilities, near me when I don the damn thing.

Here was Andrew’s take on his experience.

In general, I haven’t had the amazing burst of energy I had after my night in the hospital. Maybe the psychosomatic explanation holds up. But my sleep has been better; and longer; and deeper. I’m told it takes time to feel the cumulative effects; I do feel more rested; and sleeping itself has been much easier than I anticipated. But one side-effect has surprised me. It probably shouldn’t have. It makes sense, after all. I’ll give you a subtle hint: when you have air being pumped into you with a face mask for eight hours a night, and when there’s nowhere for it to escape, except some small holes in the top of the mask, then the air finds other outlets. So now, I officially have hot air coming out of both ends. The boyfriend has to choose between being deafened or fumigated. But my sleep is heavenly.

As for me, the first night with the CPAP mask (albeit in a sleep lab) was not the kind of euphoric experience Sully had. I just hope that I develop the long term, deeper sleep deal he talks about. PatriotPartner will probably be glad to sleep sans 32 decible earplugs, that’s for sure.

So I’m hoping that an increase in forced oxygen doesn’t turn one from a pro-war conservative to a Gay Leftist. Perhaps that’s why the Left wants to clean up the air? They know some secret molecule in O2 will brainwash all of us?

Anyway, my lack of sleep (perhaps stretching back over two years) is probably one reason I’ve been irritable at times and having increasing short term memory problems. The other reason is that I am irritable at times, and frankly the less I remember the less I have to testify to under oath.

-Bruce (GayPatriot… headed to Cleveland)