First… I’m going to ramble a bit. I’ve had a tiring company meeting in Florida and I haven’t been home in over a week.

I would first say “Kudos” to Dan for ignoring the Log Cabin self-love fest with Arnold. LCR’s hard Left turn is complete as I saw a teaser for the Arnold dinner on CNN in the airport this afternoon. *rolling eyes* Log Cabin won’t get a red cent of my hard-earned money until they realize that they are not a solely-owned and funded subsidiary of the anti-American Gay Left. Log Cabin has a role to play….they have just relinquished it. Instead they are simply one of the tired old voices in the losing chorus of Leftist Anger. But more on my “Log Cabin Principles For The Future” another time…

Now let’s discuss matters of real importance — the safety of Americans in the ongoing War on Terror. Today the Supreme Court dealt a victory to al-Qaeda and their American sympathizers by siding with the enemy combatants at Club Gitmo.

Best of the Web has a good summary of the idiotic Hamdan ruling.

For now at least, the court has not mandated that terrorist detainees be granted the rights of either ordinary criminal defendants (who cannot be held indefinitely unless charged and convicted) or prisoners of war (who, among other things, cannot be interrogated).

The chief result of this ruling will be to delay the trials of Guantanamo detainees until Congress or the Pentagon establishes a regime of military commissions that meets the court’s approval. For those concerned with the duration of terrorists’ captivity–a perverse thing to worry about anyway–there’s little to cheer here.

On the one hand, Oakleaf at Polipundit summed up my initial reaction. This sucks.

These individuals have no idea what they have done. I wasted 12 months of my life in Afgahnistan for this. Support by the military in the GWOT is going to collapse. This opinion will go from a ripple to a wave throughout the uniformed military. We were slapped by John McCain last December. Today, we are slapped by the Supreme Court.

And I do agree. Does the Court now believe al-Qaeda will uphold the Geneva Convention?

But in a Karl Rovian twist, I began to realize how bad this is for Democrats as we head into the fall Congressional elections. Remember 2002? The Democrats chose their union buddies over the security of you and I in the battle to pass legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. The Hamdan ruling creates a new but similar dilemma for liberals running for Congress. We will now have a pre-election Congressional session dominated by enabling legislation for military tribunals.

The November election will come down to this: Do Democrats choose to protect American security? Or do they side with the ACLU and choose to protect the civil liberties of known terrorists that are have pledged to destroy our nation and that are beheading, maiming and killing our citizens around the world?

There is NO middle ground.

It appears Nancy Pelosi has already chosen who she will stand up for. (Hint: it is not American citizens)

When Nancy Pelosi says, “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system,” what exactly does she mean? I understand that honorable people can disagree on the Hamdan decision, but surely “all” aren’t entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.

A major battle in the WOT may have been lost today at SCOTUS, but this also may be a political turning point that results in a stiffer resolve by the American public. We shall see.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Andrew Cochran at Counterterorrism blog appears to agree with Bruce, finding the decision “a huge political gift to President Bush.” As Glenn (to whom I tip my hat on this one) would say, read the whole thing!

For a while, I considered attending the Log Cabin fundraiser tonight featuring the good governor of the Golden State, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not only would it be a chance to meet the governor and hobnob with gay Republicans, but also a sign that I was hopeful that as it picks a new leader, this ostensibly Republican organization would focus more on building bridges to the GOP than on kowtowing to the left-leaning gay leadership.

And while outgoing Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero has done a few things in the past year to distinguish himself from the gay groups, as he prepares to take his leave from Log Cabin, he has (as I have noted repeatedly before) been bending over backwards not to offend those groups. Perhaps, by appearing with Governor Schwarzenegger tonight, Patrick will learn that no matter how positive an record a Republican has on gay issues, unless he toes the gay groups’ line (without the slightest deviaiton), he will earn their scorn. Although the governor signed a great variety of pro-gay bills — and made clear his support for the state’s pioneering domestic partnership program, gay activists hold him in contempt for vetoing a bill recognizing gay marriage in the Golden State.

And even that veto likely did more good than harm.

After the legislature passed the bill, social conservatives were gathering signatures for a state referendum which would not only ban gay marriage, but would aso overturn the state’s domestic partnership program. Given that Proposition 22 (a state referendum defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman) passed overwhelmingly in 2000, had that proposal made the Golden State’s ballot, it stood a good chance of passing.

When the Governor vetoed the gay marriage bill, he deprived the social conservatives of the impetus they needed to rally the public to their cause. No longer could they make the case to voters that the state was bypassing the people by recognizing gay marriage. As a result, they failed gather enough signatures for their gratuitous referendum; it will not be on the ballot this year.

Given all the good the Governor has done, I wanted to show my support for him tonight even though the money from tonight’s event goes not to the Governor’s campaign coffers, but to Log Cabin’s depleted treasury. And when I learned that Patrick was stepping down as head of Log Cabin, I had considered going to the dinner.

It was, however, the tone of Patrick’s response to the president’s speech earlier this month reiterating his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage that caused me to change my mind. Instead of responding with in a responsible manner, taking issue with the president’s points (which he would have been right to do), Patrick adopted the angry tone of the national gay leaders and released a nasty, confrontational missive, eschewing civility and insulting the president.

Let me repeat: Patrick was right to crticize the president for his support of this amendment. He was wrong to adopt the tone he used in his letter. I simply cannot support an ostensibly Republican organization whose leader so shuns civil discourse, particularly when addressing the president from his own party — on an issue of such importance.

Under Patrick Guerriero’s leadership, Log Cabin has seemed more eager to attack the Republican President of the United States than to distinguish itself from the left-wing gay groups. No matter how much I like the Governor — and appreciate his leadership — I cannot then in good conscience, give money to the organization while Patrick Guerriero is still at its helm.

Given how gay groups have reacted to Governor Schwarzenegger, the leaders of this ostensibly gay Republican group should realize that these groups are more interested in attacking Republicans than in reaching any kind of consensus on gay issues. Log Cabin should be doing what it can to distinguish itself from the angry, partisan rhetoric of the national gay organizations. Instead, with a few notable exceptions, it has joined them in mean-spirited attacks on the president and has pretty much held its fire when Democrats take stands on gay issues for which the national gay leadership lambastes Republicans.

I am hopeful that the next leader of Log Cabin will be more eager to build bridges to the GOP and willing to distinguish him- (or her-) self from the national gay groups. Should Log Cabin’s board pick such an individual, I will be delighted to support the organization, rhetorically as well as financially.

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

Sometimes, I think my road to romance is paved with odd experiences. Last night, after returning from class, I went to BoiFromTroy‘s Welcome-to-LA party for GayOrbit‘s Michael Demmons. At said event, I met a fetching young man (even a conservative!) who, like me, has an interest in ancient history. Not only that he was delighted to hear me declaim Beowulf in the original. (And I learned later that he also loves Madeline Kahn.)

He invited me to go to a party at the Palms, a lesbian watering hole in central WeHo. When we arrived, we could not find his friends celebrating, but instead garnered a few glances from the gals gathering there. When he InstantMessaged (on his trusty Blackberry) the organizer of the shindig, informing him of our arrival, he learned that the party was slated for Friday. With laughter on our lips, we took our leave.

Much as I like lesbians, I’ll have to say it was an odd experience, wandering into a lesbian bar on the wrong night. For the five, maybe ten, minutes that we were there, while we did get a few looks, no one was rude to us, indeed, most of the women there were quite friendly (as far as i can tell).

Of course, the whole experience made me wonder (yet again) if maybe I really am a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

That said, all in all it was a fun night. At Boi’s party for Michael, I met another lesbian, a nice gal from Long Beach, a good conversationalist who reads this blog. (She had driven up just to meet Michael!) I had the chance to hobnob with a few other bloggers, including Boi himself, Matt Szabo and Andrew of Here In Van Nuys. The guest of honor (Michael Demmons) was himself also a good conversationalist — and a nice guy.

Who would think that at a gay bar I could meet another gay conservative who is fascinated with Roman History, who appreciates Old English and loves one of the greatest film comediennes of all time!

My Aussie colleague, Romeo Mike, has a regular feature known as “Moonbattery on a Pole.”  (*waves to Romeo Mike in Sydney*)

Anyway, I’m trying to clean out the very clogged GayPatriot InBox (gaypatriot2004@aol.com), and I recalled that I had saved my very own “Moonbattery In My InBox.”   Here goes.

Hi, I read your article where you compare or mention both Cindy Sheehan and Fred Phelps. Now, I’m guessing since your e-mail address is, “gaypatriot” I can assume you’re a homosexual.

First off, I’ll just say that I’m 100% for gay marriage and I see nothing wrong with homosexuals for being who they are.

I do, however, think it’s wrong to take one person’s ideas and compare them to another person’s ideas when their core beliefs are radically different.

A radical liberal would be against war because he or she wouldn’t want all the bloody violence. On the other hand, a severe conservative may be anti-war because he or she supports terrorists for their hatred of homosexuals.

I myself am an anarchist and I don’t feel that oppression in anyway is a good thing at all. I also think that true Christianity is an evil thing and the Bible is full of hatred. I would never support Christianity or any of those hateful lines that tell Christians that everyone else will burn in Hell.

First of all, I’m not sure I have ever received such an anti-Christian bigoted email in my life.  But second, has anyone ever heard of a conservative opposing the War on Terror due to their hatred of homosexuals?  Conservatives, by contrast, are piling on Fred Phelps and there was even an act of Congress passed to move the freak show away from military funerals.

So perhaps this email is less “moonbattery” and more “parody”?   I know I laughed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)