It is only fitting that, as a Syracuse University alum, the GayPatriot blog loses in Round One in Malcontent’s “March Gayness Round of 64″ Tournament.

I’m happy to carry on the Round One losing tradition of a proud Orangeman!

By the way, kudos to Matt and Robbie for a very creative contest!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Outstanding news from Washington, DC this week.  Finally, the silent majority of patriotic Americans have stood up to the terrorist-supporting, pro-socialist Leftists that have been at the root of all of the anti-war protests since 9/11/2001.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup here.

It was a breath-taking, historic, and emotional day in Washington, D.C. You won’t know it if you tune in to the usual MSM channels.  But new media–bloggers, conservative documentarians, Internet activists, FReepers (giant thread here), citizen journalists, photojournalists, and talk radio hosts–turned out in full force to participate and cover the Gathering of Eagles counter-protest.

Thousands upon thousands turned out despite freezing temperatures and hairy travel conditions. We met bikers who drove up all night from Huntsville, Alabama; a retired NYC firefighter who arrived here at 2am; college students who traveled from Massachusetts; a Vietnam veteran’s wife who bought plane tickets at the last minute from San Francisco; and countless participants who arrived as part of Move America Forward’s cross-country caravan.

30,000 to be exact!

And here is the HotAir video report from the “Gathering of Eagles” pro-American rally.

And another summary of the outpouring of support of our nation over at RedState.com.

But even more basic than that was a desire to challenge the moral primacy of the “Blame America First” lobby whose unfettered access to and sympathy from the media these many years has made it seem as if passion and commitment were the sole province of the left and those that believe that America is usually on the side of the angels were condemned to silently endure the lies, the distortions, the outright calumnies emanating from the dirty necked galoots who fill up the streets in protest on a regular basis.

As much as it can be said that anti-war protests give aid and comfort to the enemy, the reverse should be true; that by coming out in such huge numbers, the pro troops demonstration should give heart to the Iraqi people and cause the insurgents a bit of discomfort. 

It is about time that those who love our country stood up and take it back from the thugs of the Left who have taken over our national media outlets.

I’ll make it a point to go to the next “Gathering of Eagles” !!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

(h/t – The Corner)

Republican Presidential Nomination

Time

03/09 – 03/12

631 RV

Giuliani 40% , McCain 20%

Giuliani +20.0%

It will be very interesting to see how nasty McCain becomes if this trend on the GOP side continues.  By the way, even though the MSM has ignored it, Rudy has been the GOP frontrunner for the better part of a year now.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

15 Minute Fame Clock still ticking…..

Jim To Dina:  I Want Custody – The Pot & The Kettle

Former Gov. James E. McGreevey has revised his divorce lawsuit against his estranged wife and is now seeking sole custody of the couple’s 5-year-old daughter — and child support.

The new documents make no mention of a “matrimonial settlement agreement” that McGreevey’s original divorce filing said had resolved all issues of custody and support.

So why the change? Maybe it has to do with the fact that Jim has said that he and his partner, Mark O’Donnell, “plan to enter into a civil union after the divorce is finalized.”

I’m sure “The Pot” will keep us informed of any new details in the life of the most famous, self-declared “gay American” of our generation.  Thanks, Pot!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Down With Cats!

Dogz Rule!

-Saxby (PatriotPooch)

**UPDATE** — March 19:  WSJ notes that the media is catching up to Al Gore’s environmental hypocrisy.  Better late than never, right? (h/t – Michigan-Matt)

Oh boy, this is priceless.

Al Gore Jr. received more than $500,000 in royalties from the owners of zinc mines who held mineral leases on his farm near Carthage, Tenn. Now the mines have a new owner and are scheduled to reopen later this year.

Before the mines closed in 2003, they emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal.

State environmental officials say the mine has had a good environmental record and there is no evidence of unusual health problems in the area.  [GP Ed. Note - I'd hate to see a bad environmental record!]

But the mine’s reopening again raises concerns about threats to the environment.

And if you want to read a great and intelligent smackdown of the Gore Environmental Hypocrisy — check out Charles Krauthammer’s column in TIME Magazine this week.

Remember the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore global-warming pitch at the Academy Awards? Before they spoke, the screen at the back of the stage flashed not-so-subliminal messages about how to save the planet. My personal favorite was “Ride mass transit.” This to a conclave of Hollywood plutocrats who have not seen the inside of a subway since the moon landing and for whom mass transit means a stretch limo seating no fewer than 10.

Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening’s “carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits. That means it sent money to a “carbon broker,” who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce carbon emissions somewhere on the planet equivalent to what the stars spewed into the atmosphere while flying in on their private planes.

In other words, the rich reduce their carbon output by not one ounce. But drawing on the hundreds of millions of net worth in the Kodak Theatre, they pull out lunch money to buy ecological indulgences. The last time the selling of pardons was prevalent–in a predecessor religion to environmentalism called Christianity–Martin Luther lost his temper and launched the Reformation.

Gore buys absolution, however. He spends pocket change on carbon credits, which then allow him to pollute conscience-free.

What is wrong with this scam? First, purchasing carbon credits is an incentive to burn even more fossil fuels, since now it is done under the illusion that it’s really cost-free to the atmosphere.

Second, it is a way for the rich to export the real costs and sacrifices of pollution control to the poorer segments of humanity in the Third World. (Apparently, Hollywood’s plan is to make up for that by adopting every last one of their children.)

Al Gore:  Using his private jet to fly to a city near you to lecture you on never doing the things he can do.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This morning, AOL headlines its top news with the line, “E-mails Show Rove Involved in Firings,” but when you click on that link, you learn only of one line in an e-mail where Kyle Sampson, the op aide to Alberto Gonzalez, wrote about firing all the U.S. attorneys that “if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I.”

Note the conditional here. This statement says nothing about what Karl Rove thinks, but instead offers insight into how Sampson would react if Rove thought there was political will to replace the attorneys. In a January 6 e-mail, Colin Newman, roughly quoting a conversation he had with Rove, writes that he asked “how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.” Note that Rove asked how they were planning to proceed, thus indicating that he was aware of plans to replace some or all of the U.S. Attorneys.

That does confirm that the White House was involved. Only 8 of the attorneys were replaced — and long after the e-mails were written (one was fired last summer, the remaining seven in December).

It doesn’t seem that Rove himself did anything wrong. To be sure, Newsweek‘s
Michael Isikoff is correct to write that the president’s top political aide “had a greater level of involvement in the dismissal of the prosecutors than the White House has previously acknowledged.” But, a greater involvement than previously disclosed doesn’t amount to scandal.

Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY concludes that “Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning.” Yeah, he was involved. But, given what Sampson wrote about political will, it seems that if anything Rove encouraged his colleagues to proceed more cautiously. Let me repeat only 8 U.S. Attorneys (fewer than 10%) were fired — and long after this e-mail exchange.

Given that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, it makes sense that his top political aides would offer advice on whether to replace them. The Administration should have been more forthcoming about the reasons for the firing. Once again, poor public relations skills lead to the perception of a scandal.

And once again, the MSM seems convinced that Karl Rove had been involved in some kind of scandal. Given that Rove never misrepresented his role in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, the issue is not his misdeeds, but why other Administration officials were not as forthcoming as they should have been about the President exercising his prerogative to dismiss appointees who serve at his pleasure.

To me, this appears more clumsy than scandalous. And the latest headlines combined with the overblown rhetoric of Democrats like Schumer shows how the MSM and the Democrats are ever eager to paint Karl Rove in a negative light.

Why is it that so many on the left are so opposed to President Bush that they can’t acknowledge any of his accomplishments? It is as if they believe he is only capable of failure. And while we (just like most conservatives) have acknowledged his mistakes — and failures, his ideological adversaries refuse to admit that he has gotten a few things right, content are they to blather on about how he’s the worst president in U.S. history while twisting his record to fit their rhetoric.

Although the stock market has slipped in recent days, it is still considerably higher than it was when Bush took office. The economy continues to hum along, growing annually and creating new jobs while inflation remains relatively low. And we have captured or killed a number of leading terrorists, thwarting numerous plots to kill innocent civilians.

In the news this week, we learn of the role of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (long in U.S. Custody) in plotting the 9/11 attacks, in beheading “American journalist Daniel Pearl and [playing] a central role in 30 other attacks and plots in the U.S. and worldwide.” This terrorist’s confession is clearly a sign of success in the war on terror (or as our man Rudy puts it, terror’s war on us).

Yet, some on the left are so caught up in their hatred of President Bush that they show sympathy for a man who boasts of decapitating an American journalist, refusing to acknowledge that, under his leadership, we were able to work with our allies to capture this fiend and get him to admit to his involvement in numerous terrorist plots, many of which may well have been thwarted “as a result of his capture.”

Despite this man’s clear involvement in plots which killed (or planned to kill) innocent Americans, as 2006 blogress diva nominee Debbie Schlussel (via NewsBusters via reader Peter Hughes), Rosie O’Donnell is worried we will rob this creep “‘of all humanity’ because we call him a ‘terrorist.’” She suggests that he has been tortured at Guantanamo without any evidence to buttress her claims. Not only that, she notes that, after nearly four years in captivity, this thug finally confesses his sins, apparently unaware that he had been suspected of such involvement long before his 2003 capture.

(more…)

Senator Simpson was always a political hero of mine as a kid.  I admired his bluntness and his smart wit.  But it is only as a gay adult that I have truly appreciated Simpson’s compassion and true (“small c”) conservativeness. 

He strikes another one out of the park on our behalf in this Washington Post column calling for the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  (Read the whole thing!)

As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review — and overturn — the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But much has changed since 1993.

My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation’s “foreign language deficit” and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers.  Is there a “straight” way to translate Arabic?  Is there a “gay” Farsi?  My God, we’d better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that “gay” is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman’s on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge.

In a relevant side note, my personal crusade against the Hypocritical Rights Campaign began the night of the HRC’s alleged Capitol Hill “vigil” following the murder of Matthew Shepard in Sen. Simpson’s home state of Wyoming.  Simpson was booed by the gay-dominated crowd when he was introduced to speak at the “vigil”.  (I put “vigil” in quotes because it immediately turned into an HRC-sponsored pep rally for Democrat Congressional Candidates on the steps of the US Capitol).

I was disgusted that people would treat Sen. Simpson with such disrespect when he spoke from the heart about the murder of Shepard in his backyard.  Simpson was a rare Republican lawmaker speaking out on behalf of the gay community — and the gay community treated him like crap.  So much for reaching out and broadening our coalition of supporters, right?

Finally, that evening crystallized my disdain with the HRC when… in the middle of the solemn “vigil”… someone was passing out pamphlets for a fundraiser at a DC bar immediately following the DCCC rally Shepard vigil.  It was a night of complete disgust for me that cemented my place as a fighting gay conservative.

PS — THANK YOU, SENATOR SIMPSON!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

My only consolation that this isn’t one of the seven signs of the apocolypse is that it is going straight to DVD.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It seems that whenever I reveal my politics to a new friend, particularly if that friend is gay, he immediately asks if I like the president. And sometimes when I offer my qualified support of Bush, some readily accuse me of being a Bush apologist. But, those who read this blog know that while we have frequently defended the nation’s 43rd* Chief Executive, we have from time to time taken issue with him. As I wrote last year:

Perhaps, we spend so much time defending the president because his critics, particularly those on the gay left, make such outlandish (and very often inaccurate) accusations against him.

In that very post, when we graded the president on the Reagan legacy, we only gave him a B/B-.

Now, with the Administration’s clumsy handling of firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys, government appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, we see once again one of the president’s biggest problem — his failure to consider how issues play out in the media. I would argue that his second biggest problem is his excessive loyalty to his appointees.

Then-president Clinton didn’t catch nearly as much flack back in 1993 when his newly-appointed Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys, an unprecedented act. Before then, a new president only dismissed the attorneys appointed by his predecessor after he found individuals to replace them.

The president and his team at the Justice Department should have been better prepared for the media firestorm that was bound to ensue, given that, unlike Clinton in 1993, the incumbent’s party no longer controls Congress and given the media’s generally critical attitudes toward this Administration.

This is not the first time the president has failed to anticipate the media outcry against his policies. That he kept the defensive Scott McClellan on as press secretary for nearly three years suggests that he was not interested in standing up to a media which became increasingly aggressive and antagonistic as the president’s post-9/11 glow started to fade in 2002 and 2003.

Simply put, the Administration was not prepared to go on a P.R. offensive when the media began its attack. As one of Tammy Bruce‘s readers commented to her blog:

When the Dems first started saying Bush lied to get us into war, they should have been slammed hard and fast with the facts. When Murtha first talked about “redeploying” it was a shock but the administration let it slide until the public got used to the idea through unchallenged repetition. When the post-Katrina accusations of racism were thrown around, the outrage over such a slander should have been immediate.

Just look at how the Administration handled Joe Wilson’s lies. Instead of having the press secretary come forth rebutting that Democrat’s claims point by point (as the Senate Intelligence Committee would do more than year later), Administration officials worked behind the scenes to discredit that dishonest man.

(more…)

Ever since we strengthened our spam filter, leading a number of comments to be caught in our “Moderation Queue,” I have been astounded to discover there the number of comments of readers who have been banned from this site, many of them in the same tone which caused these individuals to lose their privilege to comment here.

I will never (fully) understand why those who so revile us spend so much time on this site, not merely reading (or claiming to read) our posts, but also taking the time to write comments telling how much they hate us, but failing to address the points we’ve made.

Some just attack us with one individual offering this comment: “why should anyone be surprised at the bigotry towards homosexuals expressed by conservatives. conservatives by definition are narrow-minded, living in the past and have a hard time thinking out of the paper bag of limited ideas they place themselves in.” It’s obvious this individual has not spent much time reading conservatives blogs — or otherwise familiarizing himself with conservative ideas.

Let me make clear, this does not hold true for all of our critics, many of whom make valid points about our posts and address weaknesses in our arguments.

What strikes me the most about our angry critics is what I call, their “entitlement mentality,” they feel they have a right to post on this site and that our banning them deprives them of free speech. But, the banning does no such thing. They are welcome to find other fora to vent their hatred of conservatives — and there are many such blogs which specialize in that.

Once again, I express the wish that those who disagree with us who take the time to read our posts, take the time to craft serious rebuttals to our arguments, understand that we put them forward in good faith and that we welcome serious discussion. It’s why we have a comments section. There are those who do that.

Then, there are also those who have a very strong animus against those on the right. And yet their very comments indicate how limited their understanding is of those they hate so much. Indeed, they frequently misrepresent the posts to which they attach their comments. And why is it, I wonder, that they spend so much at a blog whose ideas they understand so little but hate so much?

My greatest fear in doing the posts on sex and morality (here and here) is that some people will assume I have become judgmental, faulting those who do not live up to an idealistic vision of sexual expression. Were I to be that person, I would have to be critical of the behavior of most of my friends (at one point of another in their lives) and even myself. For not only have we all (well, most of us, including yours truly) failed to live up to our ideals, but we have also had to learn by trial and error what works best for us.

My point in doing the posts was to stimulate discussion. As anyone has learned who has tried to understand his sexuality, it is a very complicated issue, one for which the morality of right and wrong only has limited usefulness. There are clearly things which are wrong (i.e., sleeping with a man in a committed relationship), but on most issues, we have to stumble around in the dark before we find what is right for us.

On both threads, there has been some serious conversation and, alas, some who would rather fault this blog for its political leanings than address this non-political topic which, I believe, all gay men (indeed, all men and all women) should consider. And should consider in a thoughtful manner. For just as there are many Republicans, including some of our readers, who do have (and live) a moral vision of their sexuality, there are numerous Democrats (and others on the left) also committed to such a lifestyle.

This is not a political issue. And let me repeat, the morality I propose is not judgmental, but rather transformational — or perhaps inspirational — reminding us to see our sexuality in a context that transcends its carnal aspects.

At the same time, I draw readers’ attention to a comment a reader made to my first post on the topic:

horniness can be analogous to pain we feel the need to do something (i.e., masturbate or have sex) just to cease the “pain” in our brain. (Is this why we call an orgasm a “release”?) Of course, that doesn’t excuse us from behaving irresponsibly to others and ourselves.

We all need to understand that many of us see (or have seen) sex as a means to feel less alone, to connect, if just for a moment, with another human being.

The basic reason I have been writing these posts is not because I have the answers, but because I believe the questions are important ones, ones which all of us, gay and straight alike, should address so that we might better understand ourselves and live more meaningful lives.

I hated to send this email this morning to the editor of PoliPundit, but the comments I saw at their blog today were only the latest in an escalating trend of very ugly anti-gay posts and comments.

To:  PoliPundit –

I just wanted to express to the both of you my personal disappointment with the very angry and hurtful comments regarding gays that has been going on at PoliPundit.   It used to be one of my favorite political sites, but OakLeaf and The Ace (specifically) have been stoking some very dangerous language about gays.  The latest is in this post:

http://polipundit.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=17079&c=1#comments

I am the last one to advocate the curtailing of free speech, and I’m certainly not suggesting that at all.

But it seems to me there is a lot of anti-gay stereotypes being thrown out in quite an ugly manner.  I expect to see this kind of stuff at Daily Kos, etc., but not at PoliPundit.  Substitute “Christian”, “black”, or “Jew” instead of gay and you get my point.  This is ugliness that is inexcuseable in a democracy that is supposed to be “the melting pot.”

I’m sorry that you all have moved in that direction, considering that there are a lot of gay conservatives — and a lot of gays serving in the military who are much braver than I.

PoliPundit was one of the first blogs I began to read in 2004, and also one of the only conservative blogs that gave GayPatriot some attention.  But I’m afraid we are going to have to take you off of our blogroll.  I just can’t tolerate that kind of attack and be true to myself when I look in the mirror.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I have to wonder think hope that Log Cabin Republicans helped get Senator Warner (R-VA) to make this strong statement of support for gays and lesbians serving in the military.

The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace’s view that homosexual acts are immoral.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, “I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held.”

The power to schedule hearings rests with the current chairman, Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

But Warner’s comments suggest that he may be willing to revisit U.S. military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which was crafted under President Clinton and backed by Pace. A spokesman said Warner has not discussed his view of the policy in past years.

By the way, why hasn’t Senator Levin come out to support gays in the military after Pace’s comments Monday?  I thought the Democrat Party was the one carrying the gay water for all of us???   (*cough*)

Meantime, General Pace has backtracked.

A statement Tuesday by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on remarks he made in an interview on gays in the military:Yesterday, during a wide-ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, I was asked if I think the current policy as codified in U.S. Code, generally referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” should still hold.

People have a wide range of opinions on this sensitive subject.

The important thing to remember is that we have a policy in effect, and the Department of Defense has a statutory responsibility to implement that policy.

I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, “don’t ask, don’t tell” allows individuals to serve this nation; and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts.

In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct. I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.

While I strongly disagree with Pace’s comments and his assessment of homosexual acts (as he puts it), I do dread the thought police coming after him to the point that the message in America these days is that you cannot express your personal opinion unless it is shared by those in the media and the liberal elite.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Perhaps I shouldn’t have referenced Matt Sanchez in my recent post on (Gay) Sex and Morality. For as I — and some of my defenders — recognized (in the comments section), our critics used that reference to focus on that man’s alleged hypocrisy while ignoring the overall point of the post.

I merely used Sanchez as a jumping off point for his story caused me to reconsider the question of sexual morality. But, except for his comment on porn (that it “flattens the soul“), I don’t really find that he himself has contributed to the conversation on this important topic, the point is — and let me repeat it for blog readers ever eager to criticize gay conservatives, even if their criticism is based not on what we said, but what they think we had said — the point is that Sanchez’s story caused to me to think about sex and morality.

And on that very topic too, some readers totally missed the point of what I was trying to say. One reader even claimed that I “berate[d] gay men for not living up to a very particular standard of sexual morality.” I did no such thing. The closest I came to berating was to say that our culture does not promote sexual restraint.

I proposed instead putting forward a vision of morality which is not judgmental, but instead transformational — where we see that our sexuality can transcend the physical. Instead of berating, I wanted to inspire, to draw from the lessons I learned in my various experiences and begin a conversation about the potential of our sexuality to foster spiritual intimacy.

And if I fault gay men at all, it’s for not being willing to engage in this important conversation.

I believe sexuality is a very individual thing — and each person should be free to decide how to act on his desires. But, I also believe that our sexuality can nourish us spiritually (as well as satisfy us physically) if we see it as more than a means of physical pleasure, but also as a means of human connection.

Hey, do you like the catchy headline?  Get it?  General Pace’s comments about homosexuality… and “the military keeping pace”?  Heh heh.

Anyway, my apologies for not putting up a posting on this earlier.  My real job — the one that pays the mortgage and feeds the puppies — has a lot of my attention this week.

Here are Pace’s comments via the Chicago Tribune:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts “are immoral,” akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.  

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

At the very least, you have to wonder who was advising General Pace for his testimony.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network demands an apology.

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,” said C. Dixon Osburn, the group’s executive director. “Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace’s praise, not his condemnation. As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.”

General Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, The Tribune reported on its Web site. He also announced his opposition to Congressional legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The Williams Project at the University of California-Los Angeles estimates at least 65,000 lesbian and gay Americans are currently serving on active duty and the reserves. Another 1 million gay Americans, the group has estimated, are veterans of the armed forces.

Obviously, General Pace’s comments are out of touch and disrespectful.  But one also has to realize that he is reflecting the views of a lot, if not the majority of our fellow Americans.  I thought the comments of Tribune blogger Frank James were very good about this whole controversy.

Pace also attributed his views on homosexuality to his “upbringing.” But what if the lessons he learned and internalized as a youth included a dislike of blacks or Hispanics? Or the army? (Pace is a Marine.) It’s doubtful that citing his “upbringing” would be an acceptable explanation for holding such views.

By citing his upbringing, Pace appears to be saying his views are so foundational, of such long-standing that he can’t or won’t change them. But surely he has revised other views he was taught as a youth just as most of us have. So clearly he has some choice about the views he holds as an adult.

This isn’t meant as a criticism of Pace. It’s meant to use Pace as an example of how confounding the issue of homosexuality is when one makes black-and-white moral arguments about it.

I’m sure we will hear a lot more about the backlash to Pace’s comments in the coming days.  It seems like there is a “gay firestorm” story covered by the mainstream media nearly every week now!

[RELATED STORY: Gay Advocates Demand Apology from Pace - 365gay.com (h/t - Michigan-Matt)]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I have become aware of two new blogs that I thought would be of interest to everyone.

First, ThatGayConservative has launched TheDailyFoz.

So this is a blog I decided to do for fun. Sorta a tribute to Fozzie, I guess you could say.

***** 

Kermit: Where did you learn to drive?

Fozzie: I took a correspondence course.

And second, a fellow gay patriot hails over at Reality Mugged Me.

“A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” – Irving Kristol

Reality Mugged Me is the personal soapbox of one Nate Nelson, a 22-year-old undergrad poli sci major at Ohio University. A former Democrat, Nate is now a proud neoconservative Republican. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that Nate gave up his lucrative career as a gay porn star to pursue blogging as a self-hating hypocrite, his true passion.

I’m pretty sure he’s joking about the gay porn star part…. but hey, we are a big tent!

Please give them some readership love today!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Several years ago, while browsing in a bookstore in an outlet mall in North Carolina, I chanced upon Dr. Ruth Westheimer’s Sex and Morality: Who Is Teaching Our Sex Standards. While I have never read the book, it has sat on the shelves in my various apartments for the past decade or so. I keep it as much because I intend to read the book as because its title intrigues me.

In the past week, particularly as I have followed the media reaction to the revelations that Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, recently honored by CPAC, had once done gay porn, that issue has once again come to mind. In the comments to Bruce’s post on the topic, a reader linked Kevin McCullough’s Townhall.com column explaining Why Christians Embrace ‘Gay’ Porn Stars. And while I disagree with many of his conclusions, I do think he gets a few things right. But, alas that he paints with too broad a brush, ruling out all gay sex.

On some issues, he does address issues essential to the conversation on sex and morality, issues which, I believe, we need to bear in mind. He suggests that the “thought of personal sexual restraint is foreign to” certain “homosexuals.”

Sexual restraint lies at the heart of any notion of sexual morality. And even while acknowledging — and one day hoping to act upon — their own longings for same-sex physical intimacy, gay people are capable of restraining themselves sexually. It’s just that our culture, alas, does not seem to promote such restraint, indeed, encouraging us to “let go” sexually just so long as we “play safe.”

Too often gay people turn away from discussion of morality in our considerations of sexuality because too many people, like Mr. McCullough, have cast sexual morality in such black-and-white terms. Merely by acting on our same-sex sexual desires, these people claim, we will be committing a sin.

But, the real issue of morality is not one of judgment, but one of personal/spiritual transformation — how to turn our longings for carnal contact into something more than a mere grinding of loins (to paraphrase Catullus). A friend once said, morals exist to help us live happier lives. I second that and add that they also help us live deeper, more meaningful lives.

(more…)

The diligent reader will note that in the title to this post, I put the word homophobia in quotation marks. Simply put, I don’t like the word. I understand that it means an aversion to homosexuality and gay people, but as a lover of words, I also know that it is derived from Greek words meaning same (“homo”) and phobia (“fear”) so it really means fear of sameness whereas I believe that most people described as “homophobic” are really afraid — or incapable — of understanding, appreciating and/or accepting difference.

That said, I find that more often than not, many of those who bandy about the term “homophobia” seem to use it to explain any attitude towards gay people — or gay cultural products — with which they do not agree. They seem to think that the only reason someone may not agree with their opinion on such issues is because of an animosity towards homosexuality, because that individual is, as they put it, homophobic, or, as others (including yours truly) might say, anti-gay.

A case in point is the attitude some people have to the failure of the movie, Brokeback Mountain to win an Oscar last year. In its latest issue, the Advocate published two letters of readers upset that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences invited Ellen de Generes (who happens to be a lesbian) to host the Oscars because of its anti-gay attitudes. Reader L. Martin believes “last year’s snub of Brokeback Mountain came down to homophobia.” David Perry was even more harsh describing last year’s Oscars as a “gay-bashing fest.”

If the Oscars were such a “gay-bashing” fest last year, then Brokeback wouldn’t have garnered eight nominations, taking home three statuettes, including Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. The issue at last year’s Oscars was not so much that Brokeback failed to win Best Picture, but that Crash did. It seemed the Academy voters wanted to congratulate themselves for their social consciousness by honoring a film which dealt with “difficult” issues of ethnic difference. I also happened to think that it was a pretty good flick.

Last year, many gay people (and not only gay people) hoped that Brokeback would win Best Picture. Too many attributed its failure to anti-gay attitudes at the Academy. I don’t know why it is that people see anti-gay attitudes in so many decisions which run counter to our expectations.

Just because I don’t much care for Rose O’Donnell doesn’t mean I dislike lesbians. I just don’t appreciate the attitudes (and opinions) of that individual who happens to be a lesbian. By the same token, Academy voters who preferred Crash to Brokeback didn’t (necessarily) prefer the prefer the former to the latter because they were uncomfortable with the latter film’s gay theme, but likely because they thought the former was a better film. I can certainly understand that assessment.

To be sure, there are many people in our society who still harbor anti-gay attitudes. But, such animus is not as widespread as it once was — or as many imagine it to be. It’s time we accept that someone’s (or some group’s) attitude toward certain gay-themed cultural products or toward certain gay individuals don’t necessarily indicate such an animus, but rather their own individual (or collective) value judgments.

But, I still wonder what certain people so readily jump to the conclusion that such judgments must necessarily mean that such people are “homophobic.”

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