Gay Patriot Header Image

Disagreeing with GP on the “Democrats’ Jeff Gannon”

It is not often that I disagree with Bruce’s posts. While we have very different styles, we have very similar political views. Often when something in the news strikes me and I want to post on it, by the time I check our blog, I’ll find Bruce has already posted on it.

I had thought that Bruce and I would agree when V the K of Caption This! e-mailed us both about Tom Malin’s past. What struck me about this was the hypocrisy angle, not of Mr. Malin, but of the anti-Republican gay bloggers, ever eager to pounce on anything, no matter how minor, which they could use against the President or his party. Yet, if they discover that someone on the Left had done something similar, they ignore or it make excuses for the Democrat’s behavior.

To me, that’s the issue here. And to that extent, I believe Bruce’s post was newsworthy — to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the left-of-center bloggers who were obsessed with Gannon’s past (because he’s a Republican), yet indifferent to Malin’s (because he’s a Democrat).

That said, I’m troubled by posting this stuff on Malin’s past for a number of reasons. First, I just don’t believe it’s right to snoop around in someone’s private life (to glean details of that individual’s private activities where he did not harm anyone). Not only that. Malin has acknowledged his past mistakes and changed his behavior, thus, assuming that he did not hurt anyone (to whom he would need make restitution), we cannot hold this against him.

And finally, because of my libertarian streak, I could basically care less if someone is (or was) an escort. As long as he’s not coercing anyone and not having sex with minors, it’s his body. What Malin used to do may not be good for his soul, but it’s his soul, not mine.

In Malin’s race for state legislature, voters should evaluate him, not on his past behavior, but on his present platform. As to what he did in the past, provided he didn’t hurt or harm anyone, that’s his concern — and should not be one for the voters. But, it is interesting that so many who work themselves into a lather about what a Republican does on his own time are indifferent to what a Democrat does on his.

(GP Update – 4:00PM Tuesday – I understand where Dan is coming from on this and agree that gutter politics is gutter politics. However my biggest problem is that this man, who expects the public to put their trust in him, had the bad judgement to allow this story to come out — no pun intended — by someone else, and then appears to suddenly “find religion” in order to salvage his political candidacy. However, my biggest question of judgement is why anyone with an escorting past would think they could run for public office without the past being disclosed.)

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

Is The Weather In Roanoke THIS Bad?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:48 pm - February 20, 2006.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

Another WSLS weatherman admits struggle with heroin – (h/t – Drudge)

Not one, but two WSLS (Channel 10) meteorologists — Marc Lamarre and Jamey Singleton — have struggled with a heroin addiction in recent months, according to an interview with Singleton that aired on WSLS’s late-night newscast Friday.

“Anyone can fall into this,” Singleton said. “It’s hard, it’s a disease and it’s been rough.”

Singleton said the toughest part of his ordeal was finding out that his friend and neighbor, Lamarre, 36, suffered a near-fatal heroin overdose on the evening of Feb. 2. Lamarre is recovering, according to WSLS, but he is no longer employed with the station.

The most unfortunate part of this story is that it wasn’t cocaine so I couldn’t do any lame “let it snow” jokes….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Another Anti-US, Anti-Bush Tirade

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 3:11 pm - February 20, 2006.
Filed under: Liberals,War On Terror

Unbelieveable…. can you guess which national Democrat said these comments this morning on various cable news shows?

The repressive steps taken by the [coalition], to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam.”

“The war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq as he (Bush) claims, but rather Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified forces.”

“The Pentagon’s figures indicate an increase in the number of killed and injured in addition to the massive material losses, not to mention the collapse of troop morale and the increase of the suicide rates among them.”

Ted Kennedy — who celebrated the anniversary of the Abu Grahib prison revelations, but not the free elections in Iraq?

John Murtha — who advocates an immediate retreat from Iraq because it has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

Howard Dean — who thinks President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks?

Nancy Pelosi? Barbara Boxer?

Nope, keep guessing… (answer revealed after the jump)


DADT: A Gay Servicemember’s Perspective. Part I: Not-So-Straight Facts

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 8:51 am - February 20, 2006.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Blogger’s Note:
I have been meaning to write this since Bruce invited me to join him and Dan as a regular contributor here at GP. Last week’s release of the University of California’s advocacy group CSSMM‘s study revealing that the costs of Bill Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy amounted to one one-hundredth of one percent of the military budget over 10 years seems to have re-sparked the debate about gays in the military. This will be the first in a series of posts I’ll make regarding facts, opinion, and the realities on the ground. The hope is to do a 3- or 4-part posting, each separated by a day or two to allow for dialog. I invite vigorous discussion, but do implore the readers and commenters to stick to the topics I raise and refrain from tangientially attacking one side or the other on issues of no relevance.

I’ve been advocating we maintain perspective on this issue for some time (alas, often in vain). But let’s start with some real facts before we move on:

1) The total number of gays discharged prior to DADT’s implementation will never be known. Gay ‘rights’ advocates who stomp around yelling about how many more gays have been discharged as a result of DADT are either consciously misleading their followers or are simply unfamiliar with how the military works and how it discharges people.
2) The reason this number cannot be known is that, prior to DADT, each prospective member was asked as part of the recruiting process if he was gay. Once DADT was put in place, this practice naturally ended. This means that,
3) A military member who came out as gay once he was enlisted (having, prior to DADT, signed a statement affirming he was not gay) was guilty of false enlistment.
4) Therefore, this member would not be kicked out of the military for being gay; No, he was kicked out for false enlistment, a far more serious matter. This had two results:
a) The member usually received a discharge under less-than-honorable circumstances, and
b) He would not be counted as having been kicked out “for being gay”
5) Now, there were some people discharged simply for being gay in the pre-DADT days. These were members who could convince their commanders that they were straight when they enlisted (and signed the paper saying so), but only afterwards realized they were gay. This realization is natural, of course, as most military members sign up at a time in their lives when they may not necessarily be aware of themselves fully. Although this type of realization happens often, back in those days, due to societal mores, few gays were self-aware enough to be able to articulate such a situation to a commanding officer when under the stress of being discharged.
6) Therefore, most (a vast majority of) gay members discharged from the military before DADT were not kicked out “for being gay”. On the other hand,
7) In the post-DADT world, damn-near all gay members booted under the policy are administratively discharged “for being gay”. (I say “damn-near all” because there are always some cases wherein a poorly-performing member has this tossed onto his pile of reasons. However, in these few instances, a servicemember’s sexuality is a moot point as he is not performing, which is the military’s focus in the first place.)
8) Which is to say, comparing the number of servicemembers kicked out “for being gay” pre-DADT and post-DADT is comparing apples to oranges (apologies for the fruit reference). The number of servicemembers who were told, “You’re gay, so you have to hit the road, sorry” was basically nil, as compared to now, where basically all of them are told this, instead of being dishonorably discharged for false enlistment.
9) It should be obvious to any observer that this is a much better (although admitedly not ideal) situation for a gay servicemember: Rather than having his future ruined with a Less-Than-Honorable Discharge (or a Court Martial conviction, which transfers to your record as a felony conviction), they are relieved of their duty and obligations without any official black mark. Ask any former servicemember who was kicked out with an LTO Discharge if he’d swap it for an Administrative Discharge, you’ll see what I mean.

Saying the number of discharges for gay members has risen as a result of DADT is like changing the definition of obesity and then saying the number of obese people has changed. You’re moving the ruler, not the measurement.

My point in bringing this to light is not to argue either side of the DADT debate. It is simply to make sure we’re all starting with the same facts on the ground. We can all come to different conclusions based on the facts, but when we allow one side of the debate to insult reality by manipulating the facts, we’re destined to fail to come to any acceptable consensus.

In my next post, we’ll go into perspective and what’s really important as we move forward with the debate.