Gay Patriot Header Image

Conservatives Continue to Stick Up For American Gays

I find one element in our post-Foley world very encouraging.  In this atmosphere of Radical Gay Liberals hunting down gays and rooting them out of public service, it is conservatives sticking up for gay people and their privacy. 

And while the Gay Leftists continue to pursue a “mutual assured destruction” campaign against gay people our national gay groups are silent.  Our “gay leaders” are also allowing the nutty gay fringe to be the face of the gay community in the national media.  One exception — Patrick Sammon from Log Cabin on Larry King Live last night (which I was unable to watch).

First example…. Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt.com — “Who’s Really Being Outed?”.

More interesting is what this line of attack tells us about the left’s beliefs regarding the right. The left strongly believes that conservatives detest homosexuals and will be disgusted by the presence of a Lavender Mafia in the GOP tent. I can understand how they would reach this conclusion – certain chronic right wing embarrassments like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have historically fed such a notion.

But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn’t mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America’s Christian community.

In short, this entire offensive rests on notions hatched in the left wing echo chamber without any dissenting voices available to disabuse the strategists of the their faulty assumptions. If the left actually took the time to understand the dynamics of the community they so loathe, they would know that professional Outing Scumbag Mike Rogers will inspire the Republican base, not the opposite.

BUT MOST DAMNING OF THE LEFT is the casual assumption of group-think that this exercise demonstrates. The logic is that if you’re gay, you must therefore support gay marriage. What’s more, you must support everything that someone like Glenn Greenwald supports. To do otherwise evidences self-hatred and a betrayal of the cause.

(read the WHOLE thing!)

And this from Eric at Classical Values — “Which Party Persecutes More Homosexuals?”

In what will go down as one of history’s great ironies, in enlightened, modern America, there are still people engaged in exposing and persecuting homosexuals working in the government or in important positions, and they are activists in the Democratic Party. (Michael Rogers and John Aravosis are two notorious, longtime practitioners, and the latter was recently invited to lunch with Bill Clinton.)

The difference is that the Democrats doing the persecution today can’t fire gay Republicans directly; instead they are tracking them down and exposing them in the hope that the Republicans will be bigoted enough to fire them. Unfortunately, this has failed. Even Rick Santorum, supposedly the worst gay basher of the lot, refused to fire his gay aide after the man was outed.

What this has created is a huge (if ironic) double standard between the parties. Gay Democrats have a right to their privacy, but gay Republicans are hounded and live in fear of the new (Democratic) sexual McCarthyism.

The reason they are made to live in fear while their Democrat counterparts are not is because gay Republicans are said to be self hating hypocrites. According to this argument, because the Republican Party does not support same sex marriage, any gay Republican is by definition betraying himself — even if he disagrees with the Republican Party on that issue. For that, it is fair to invade his privacy and make his identity and sexuality known to the world, in the hope that he’ll be fired by bigoted Republicans.

Yet the outed Republicans are not being fired. Their only persecutors are on the left. And they’re redoubling their efforts in order to combat more “hypocrisy.”

I’m not saying that the Republican Party is free of bigotry, because it isn’t. But if the activists keep this stuff up and ordinary voters find out about it (I’m not sure whether they have) pretty soon someone’s going to ask which party has more bigots.

This awesome salvo from Captain Ed — The Left Hates Gays?

These kind of slimy allegations have no way to be proven or disproven, leaving Craig with limited options to clear the air. How does one disprove a sexual orientation? He has three children with his wife Suzanne, and nine grandchildren. That seems to be proof that he has a heterosexual orientation, but Rogers and the scandal brigade will argue that Craig’s just in denial. It’s a no-win argument, and its use of anonymous sourcing is especially egregious and despicable. Rogers wants to ruin Craig politically, and yet he doesn’t produce a single source for his allegations to go on the record.

Once again, the Left shows its obsession with sexuality, but it’s really more than that. The Left obsesses over identity politics in all forms, and that obsession comes out in pathological terms. Rogers reveals this in his blog post, demanding that gay staffers on the Hill identify their orientation publicly, or else he will do it for them. Sexual identity is everything to him, and the concept of sexual privacy has no value to him at all. He wants to humiliate gays who prefer to keep their sexual activity private, forcing them to wear the virtual pink triangle against their will to experience obloquy and castigation.

However, the obloquy and castigation seems to only come from Rogers and his ilk. I couldn’t care less whether Craig is attracted to men or women; it’s really none of my business, and none of Rogers’ either. As long as he’s not importuning minors, then it makes no difference to anyone except Craig and his family, and that’s if the allegations have any basis in fact. The only time it becomes a public issue is if Craig insisted on an official government status of a same-gender relationship, which as a policy issue should be decided by the people. Most conservatives, moderates, and liberals share the same conviction that sexual orientation is a private matter. Only extremists like Rogers allow themselves to get worked up over it.

The only bigot who should be ashamed of himself is Rogers. And if he’s a libeler, he better get himself a damned good lawyer.

And finally, in one of the best written blog pieces I’ve seen in a while…. the incredible satirical “It’s the Homos, Stupid” — a letter from Howard Dean (in the form of IowaHawk) to the Conservative-American Community.

[T]his is just the tip of the GOP gayberg. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the mincing minnie who ran the GOP’s Foley coverup? A former high school “wrestling coach.” California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger? A curious fondness for flexing his oiled pecs while parading around in a pair of skimpy Speedos. “Dick Armey”? You do the math.

And if their rampant homoism weren’t enough, the GOP has further betrayed traditional conservatives by secretly nominating negros in races across the country. Yes, you read that correctly: actual negros. No matter how many times they try to hide the genetic truth from conservatives like you, GOP nominees like Michael Steele, Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell are black as the ace of spades. Imagine the devastating impact on US property values if the world learns that more of those types have moved into the Congressional neighborhood.

Are these Republican negros also gay? It is too early to say definitively, but much more will be revealed in the upcoming weeks. Our research teams are busy still digging up evidence, but what we’ve learned already should be enough to destroy whatever shred of faith you have left in the Gay Old Party. I have, in my hand, a list of of over 200 GOP insiders suspected of sodomy, locker room towel-snapping, dancing with fat girls, and open negroism. As Christians like you, we would rather persuade them to forfeit their election campaigns peacefully, but if necessary we promise to get the charges out in time for your November 5 Sunday sermons.

Are you fed up with the GOP’s miscegenation and gay bathhouse shenanigans? I know we’ve had our differences in the past, but maybe it’s time for conservatives like you to give Democrats a fresh new look. The Republicans like to talk about having a “big tent,” but we at the DNC are actually taking concrete steps to bring conservatives back in the fold. Just look at our innovative Iraq quagmire withdrawal plan, which has earned the praise and endorsement of rock-ribbed, traditional American conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Fred Phelps, and David Duke.

Like us, these no-nonsense mainstream conservatives know it’s time to bring US troops home where they belong, protecting our children from the clutches of the Republican congressional gay negro NAMBLA mafia. With our troops safely back, the people of Iraq can then begin building a faith-based society emphasizing the same traditional values that motivate conservatives like you: women at home, prayer in school, capital punishment for homos.

I am very proud of the excellent work by the conservative blogosphere by standing up for gay Americans while our own gay community turns on itself in a feeding frenzy.  I’d like to think our voices have had some impact in how conservative bloggers view gay issues and how their perceptions may have changed over the past two years.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Clarifying my Quote in the Times of London

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:41 pm - October 19, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,FoleyGate,Gay America,New Media

I learned last night that I was quoted in a Times of London piece on the aftermath of the Foley sex scandal. In reading my words as reported I see once again the benefits of blogging.

You see, I’m not entirely sure the reporter reproduced the words precisely as I spoke them. Though he may have. According to the article, I said:

It’s harder to be a gay Republican in gay circles than it is to be a gay in Republican circles — gay activists are the most intolerant SOBs I’ve ever come across.

Had I read those words in the first draft of a blog post, I would have amended the second part of the sentence to read: “some gay activists are the most intolerant SOBs I’ve ever come across.” While I have encountered many intolerant gay activists, I have encountered many broad-minded ones as well, even some on the far left.

I write this post because I do not want what appears to have been a hasty comment to define my attitude toward all gay activists.

As a blogger, when I write in haste, I can quickly change the text if I realize I left out a word or two (or included a few words too many).

I don’t doubt that reporter Tom Baldwin reproduced the words as he heard me speak them. I e-mailed him and learned that he took notes via short-hand and did not tape record them. So, he may have made an error in transcription — or I may have spoken in haste.

Let me conclude by making clear that while some gay activists are indeed quite intolerant, others are not. And I need to learn to be more careful with what I say to reporters. Unlike writing on this blog, when I speak to them, it is more difficult to change what I have to say after I have said it.

– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

Whether or Not to Buy Andrew Sullivan’s Book

After reading Andrew Sullivan’s comments yesterday on outing and rediscovering the “old Andrew Sullivan whose blog I once very much enjoyed,” I have wondered if perhaps I had been too hasty in deciding not to buy his book when I saw it last week in the Barnes & Noble in LA’s Grove. I did page through it, but it did not grab me as had his previous book, Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival. I had not planned on buying that book, but as its first pages so engaged me, I quickly changed my mind.

It’s interesting because that book gave me a greater appreciation of Andrew’s writing — and thinking. While I had enjoyed his writing in the early 1990s, by the mid-1990s, his style seemed to become sloppier and he seemed to be borrowing increasingly from the trite cliches of gay activists. He seemed to have lost the unique voice that helped him rise to prominence at such a young age.

Similarly, in the past 2 years and 8 months, Andrew has, by and large, seems to have lost the voice that I grew to admire in the years after reading Love Undetectable. Too often, he seems to be mimicking the rhetoric — and anger — of the Bush-haters. While he claimed to be criticizing the president from the right, he sounded too much like the critics of the left. He even endorsed their standard-bearer in the 2004 election.

And he has used language that is just plain silly, calling circumcision, MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) and repeatedly using the word “Christianist.”

(more…)

Priest Admits Relationship with Foley

Well, it appears that Mark Foley wasn’t making things up. “A Roman Catholic priest said he had an inappropriate two-year relationship with” the former Congressman “in the 1960s that included massaging the boy in the nude, but he did not specifically remember having sex.”

While this certainly helps explain Foley’s fascination with teenage boys, it doesn’t excuse his behavior. Indeed, David Roth, his attorney said as much “Mark does not blame the trauma he sustained as a young adolescent for his totally inappropriate [actions]. He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct.

If Foley were a Democrat, you can be sure that many of those now demonizing him would show more compassion for his present woes, given his adolescent trauma. But, for political reasons, they apply a different standard to him because of that (R) after his name. It’s too bad they’re so partisan; they should hold all people to the same standard.

To be sure, Mark Foley was, as an adolescent, the “victim” of an irresponsible adult supervising him. But that past trauma does not excuse his adult behavior. It’s a good sign his lawyer recognizes as much. Now, let’s hope that gay activists and left-wing pundits come to similar conclusions should a Democrat do what Foley has done — or worse.