Gay Patriot Header Image

Booing & Shouting: Standard Liberal Discourse?

In her comment to my post on Michael Lucas, Leah noted that, according to her son at Stanford, when the iconoclastic porn star “spoke at Stanford earlier this year, [he] as booed and shouted down.”

Such behavior, booing and shouting down, seems pretty standard behavior for some left-of-center students when speakers come to their campuses (campi?) presenting ideas that these high-minded intellectuals don’t like.

A year before its Administration invited the malicious and murderous president of a theocracy to speak at Columbia, students “booed and shouted” during an event featuring “Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico.” They later stormed the stage when that opponent of illegal immigration rose to speak. They didn’t even given him a chance to express his opinion.

Despite attending a prestigious university which supposedly only admits very smart people, they didn’t have the patience to listen to his arguments and ask him tough questions. If his ideas were so bad and they were so smart, then couldn’t they better show the superiority of their ideas by posing questions which would stump him? Why did they choose to shout him down instead of challenging his views?

Perhaps they hought they didn’t need listen to his remarks because they, being so smart, already “knew” what he stood for. And being so smart, they deemed that his ideas being inferior to theirs, they shouldn’t be aired.


Gay Media Prefers Corrupt Gay Democrat to Honest Lesbian Republcan

The Democratic former governor of New Jersey and Advocate cover boy Jim McGreevey is back in the news. A judge yesterday dismissed his ex-wife’s “claim of emotional distress.” Meanwhile, Jamie Kirchik reminds us that this Democrat’s scandal “wasn’t just about sex.”

McGreevey wasn’t just engaged in extramarital trysts with men, he was also putting them on the state payroll. While Jamie acknowledges the “eagerness of gays to champion the [ex-]Governor of the Garden State,” given the “paucity of openly gay people in public affairs,” he finds:

McGreevey inadvertently hurt the cause of gay civil rights as much as any crusading, socially conservative political activist could have hoped to do. He fed the stereotype that gays are untrustworthy and self-absorbed, and that homosexuality is a personal weakness

Exactly. And yet the Advocate put him on its cover.

In a headline on another cover, that “national gay & lesbian news magzine” accused an open lesbian of “copping out” because Mary Cheney didn’t say what they wanted her to say in her memoir, Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life.

Hmm, here we have a lesbian comfortable in her sexuality, faithful to her partner and close to her family, a woman who is anything but self-absorbed, even having the courage to come out in conservative circles and the Advocate dismisses her writing. Guess it must be that parenthetical letter after her name. That (R) seems to make one anathema to gay activists and journalists while that (D) excuses them of all wrongdoing.

If we really want to promote a positive image of gay men and lesbians in American society, gay leaders as well as our advocates in the media would be condemning the conduct of men like Jim McGreevey and wishing more people like Mary Cheney would be open about their sexuality.

HRC in bed with HRC?

On his blog yesterday, Michael Petrelis noted something which shouldn’t surprised those who have followed the goings-on at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) over the past sixteen years. This self-proclaimed civil rights organization which, in recent years, dropped the word “bipartisan” from its mission statement, seems to have a number of staffers and board members backing Ms. Hillary’s (Hillary Rodham Clinton) bid for the White House.

Guess some gay activists are not joining the mad rush to back the favored candidate of the left.

Given HRC’s record in the 1990s, it seems fitting its supporters would support the spouse of the man they swooned over in the 1990s. Just like Ms. HRC, HRC the organization stood by its man while he repeatedly broke promises he made.

HRC endorsed Bill Clinton after he codified anti-gay discrimination when, in 1993, he signed Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Then, refused to rescind that endorsement when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

Now, we learn that HRC’s (the organization) vice president for programs, David M. Smith, gave $2.300, the maximum allowed by law, to HRC, the presidential candidate. Given that Smith supervises the group’s communications department, Petrelis writes:

With Smith’s large donation in mind, I just don’t see how HRC can claim their 2008 presidential operations and media advocacy, two fields controlled by Smith, are not biased in favor one Democratic candidate over the other.

This despite HRC’s official neutrality in the presidential race. It’s not just Smith. HRC board member Hilary Rosen has also backed Ms. HRC. Anyway, read Petrelis’s post to see why he wishes HRC (the origination) would just “come out of the closet.”

Why We Don’t Need a “Gays for McCain” Group

According to Log Cabin’s web-site, its national convention will feature a “Town Hall Meeting” on Presidential Endorsement, described on the convention’s Schedule of Events as “The Road Ahead?”

In anticipation of that event, I had thought to set up an organization called, “Gays & Lesbians for John McCain” to show that while we don’t always agree with the Arizona Senator (he backed an unsuccessful proposal in his home state to bar recognition of same-sex relationships), many gay men and lesbians support this courageous veteran because we know he is sound on the most important issue of the day, the war against Islamofascism.

Indeed, we realize that that issue is particularly important to gay people, given the strong anti-gay bias of Muslim extremists and the continual persecution and execution of gay people in Islamic theocracies, like Iran.

I had considered setting up the organization as a vehicle to gather names of prominent gay Republicans backing John McCain to show Log Cabin that there was a burgeoning movement backing his White House bid. Should they fail to endorse (as they failed in 2004 to endorse the GOP nominee), they would further marginalize themselves.

But, I’m optimistic Log Cabin will endorse McCain. Should they fail to endorse, however, the title of this post would become moot. At present though, I don’t think such an organization would really sway any gay voters, primarily because those gay men and lesbians who would consider John McCain don’t play the kind of identity politics that gay activists believe we play. We see ourselves as Americans who happen to be gay and vote for the candidate whom we believe will best serve the national interest.

When we look at the two candidates for the Democratic nomination pandering to the left-wing of their party and consider the threats abroad, we know that John McCain is the best candidate for gay and lesbian Americans because he is the best candidate for all Americans.

Gay Americans don’t need a gay organization telling us as much.