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 ā 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)
i”t is more difficult to change what I have to say after I have said it.”
You just did…no problem…
Sounds more like comments than you’re published writing.
I’ll second that “some gay activists” are intolerant…and expand that to include many of their fellow travelers in the G/L community who might not march in Bush Lied, People Died and Kerry-2004 tee-shirts, but who just cheer lustfully from the sidelines all the same.
#3 – I second that emotion, Ted.
Regards,
Peter H.
I appreciate Dan’s clarification. It probably wasn’t necessary (I think most people understand that there are always exceptions to such generalized statements), but it was probably wise to clarify things, in the spirit of an abundance of caution (as they say). š
Ted B: I don’t think it’s intolerant (in any negative sense of the words) to dislike or strongly criticize — or, in extreme cases, even hate — public figures whose values are inimical to your own. That is, in fact, the case for me, with almost all politicians the early-21st-century two-party establishment. I don’t think there’s much integrity to be found there, or anyone sticking up for the values I cherish.
Another example: there’s very little tolerance from many people on this blog of people on the gay left. But, in a sense, there’s nothing wrong with that: it comes from the fact that those condeming the gay left do it because the gay left fights for values that they despise. It’s not the same kind of “intolerance” as those who disdain people because of skin color, sexual orientation, or things like that.
#5 – Kdogg, you have inadvertently echoed Peter’s Principle of Politics #101. Here it is:
Conservatives appraise you for WHO you are.
Liberals appraise you for WHAT you are.
Regards,
Peter H.
Dan, congrats on being quoted in the Times last week! (I’d missed that.)
#5 Peter: Conservatives appraise you for WHO you are.
Liberals appraise you for WHAT you are.
If only, then, the GOP was actually governed by what you describe as conservatives. It really hasn’t been during the course of my adult life, though in the mid-1990s I mistakenly thought it was.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think there’s that much difference between my political values and those on here who describe themselves as conservatives. The difference is that I don’t think the GOP today embodies those values in any respect. Neither establishment party really respects (tolerates) each person’s right to self-determination. Thus, my disillusionment with establishment politics in general.
Calarato, I’d missed it too, then last night, recalling the interview, I did a search on their site and discovered the quote.
To echo your quote – Here in Dallas our motto is that it’s easier to come out as gay than as a Republican.
Iād missed it too, then last night, recalling the interview, I did a search on their site and discovered the quote.
Set up Google Alerts for yourself under both names. I have and it’s interesting what comes up. I found my full name and location on a site where it should not have been (I didn’t put it there), contacted the site and they promptly removed it.
#10: I’ll tell you one thing… in my experience it’s far easier to come out as gay than, for instance, to come out as an opponent of government education (just one specific example). If I just blurt that out before someone knows what I’m about, they reflexively dismiss what I have to say. It’s a nuanced process for sure. š
Dan-
I don’t think you should apologize or clarify. I completely agree with the quote as it was published!
I agree with the quote as published too. I have lost many gay friends when they found out I was republican, however not a single republican friend has abandon our friendship because I am gay. I had a friend of 6 years find out I was republican, because I had to come out of the conservative closet to him – he simply got up walked out the door and I have never seen him again.
Brucelein,
The quote was accurate but also included a generalization. Generalizations are rarely good. How is a bridge to be built between both parties within the community if there is no support to hold the bridge up?
Yes, gay activists can be and are intolerant, but we’re not all intolerant. If one espouses personal accountability, one can control one’s own (re)actions, but not those of another person.
How is a bridge to be built between both parties within the community if there is no support to hold the bridge up?
Put bluntly, James, the conservative side is not the one cutting the cables and setting dynamite at the pilings.
This is also why more gays like myself are starting to question why we want a bridge in the first place.
To me, much of the “bridge-building” rhetoric is coming from groups and people that, several years ago, spat on our advice and disdainfully said they didn’t need help from our kind. HRC, for example, never uttered a kind word for a gay Republican — and in fact, had staffers working on Aravosis’s and Rogers’s harassment and threats campaigns against Republicans — until they blew tens of millions of dollars, endorsements, and their credibility in 2004 on a cadre of losing candidates who, by their definition, were hateful bigoted homophobes.
In short, they ditched and dissed us because they had moonbats — and are now crying for our help because their moonbats a) aren’t controllable, b) are making complete fools out of them, and c) driving away their other supporters and donors.
Meanwhile, we’ve managed to do quite nicely ourselves over here, with many out Republican gays holding high positions in government and in corporate America, and slowly but surely getting protections, such as the new pension bill that allows you to leave retirement funds without severe tax consequences to unrelated individuals, passed.
I say we let them dynamite the bridge and leave them running around, their moonbats swooping down and pecking out their eyes, like a re-imagining of “The Birds”.
To summarize, GPW is not destroying the bridge; he’s simply pointing out the enormous amount of effort that the gay left is putting into demolishing it.
#16 – Well said, ND30.
Regards,
Peter H.
I might be cut from different cloth…I don’t think two wrongs make a right.
NDT, please check your e-mal.
Build a bridge! I can’t think of a less appealing idea. I have no intentions of compromising my values and beliefs in order to please a gay liberal, and I know from experience how unpleasant they are when they meet a conservative. I hope the river or bay or whatever it is that separates us gets wider! The fact that such a thing would be suggested just illustrates how they define people by things like sexuality, race, gender or whatever.A person who did this is what used to be called a bigot, now they call it enlightened and consider someone obstinate or ignorant for not becomeing a faceless nameless gay robot .When faced with the fact that gay people think differently they insist on obliterating that personal individuality.