I don’t consider myself a supporter of gay marriage (even though I will effectively be voting for gay marriage this fall) largely because that institution has long served to bring together two people of different genders in a lifelong sexually exclusive union. I have mentioned this notion in numerous blog posts and devoted these two pieces to the topic.

I base my understanding on the institution on my studies of mythology, psychology, anthropology and history. Up until the end of the last century, all organic cultural marriage rituals involved each spouse performing different gender-specific acts. When cultures which defined same-sex unions as marriage, they required one of the union’s partners to live in the guise of the opposite sex and among that gender-defined community, prohibiting him (or her) from performing the roles of his biological gender. (Or otherwise they called it something other than marriage.)

Yesterday, my friend David Benkof (with whom I disagree on many issues related to the marriage debate) comes forward with research that language itself supports this notion of gender difference. He writes that, “Dr. Jay Jasanoff, the chairman of the linguistics department at Harvard [has] never encountered any language without a specific word for mother and a separate word for father.” David has collected further observations from linguistics professors who agree with Dr. Jasanoff, all languages have a gender-specific word for each parent. I encourage you to check out his post.

While David would have us Californians vote in favor of the proposed fall initiative on marriage, I would rather remind you of what Jonathan Rauch’s comment (which I referenced yesterday) that honest advocacy of same-sex marriage “requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change.”

If we’re going to debate gay marriage, let’s do so honestly (as Jonathan does). Gay marriage does represent a significant social change and a redefinition of marriage, or perhaps it might be better to say an expansion of the traditional definition. Whereas once it was limited to different-sex couples, now we’re considering whether to include same-sex couples as well.

And should we do so, we must bear in mind the responsibilities which inhere in this ancient institution.

It seems now that not a day goes past without my learning of yet another gay Hillary Supporter ill at ease with his party’s presumptive presidential nominee. This trend of gay Democrats opposed to Obama seems has become a national phenomenon.

A reader just alerted me to a Washington Blade article reporting that one of the organizers of the grassroots anti-Obama group Party Unity, My Ass is a gay man.

Will Bower, a D.C.-based a Huffington Post columnist “who strongly supported Sen. Hillary Clinton during the primary and remains a registered Democrat” believes “Barack Obama is an anti-democratically chosen candidate.” Like many disgruntled Democrats, he is currently “planning to vote for McCain.”

May this trend continue. And given Obama’s recent arrogant antics, it looks like it will.

Sunday night, when for the first time in several weeks, I finally had an evening free, I got around to sorting my notes. Like Tolkien, I find “not being able to use a pen or pencil as defeating as the loss of her beak would be to a chicken.” As a result, my apartment is cluttered with my scribblings, chicken scratchings as it were.

On a page of one of my ubiquitous pads, I had written this question: “What has HRC [the Human Rights Campaign] accomplished?”

It seems I’m not the only person asking that question. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from Michael Petrelis alerting me to his latest post where he considers the compensation of HRC leaders. Checking the 2007 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 forms for group, he finds that Executive Director Joe Solmonese has recently cracked the quarter-million mark and now takes home a salary of $259,096, causing Petrelis to observe:

I wouldn’t have any problems with these salary levels, or how $37 million is flushed down Democratic sewers, if there were dozens of legislative and federal programmatic accomplishments as a result of HRC’s bloated operations and chic staffers, and as we all know there aren’t. The best one can say about HRC’s agenda is that it is a successful producer of ritzy dinners and consumer goods stamped with their equal logo.

Sometimes I think we would we be so much better off if HRC spun itself out of the political business and became an event producer with a line of products marketed to the high income bracket gays and lesbians, and a genuine multipartisan gay advocacy created from scratch.

Petrelis’ research made my job a lot easier.

HRC has done a good job of putting on glitzy evidences and has demonstrated considerable fundraising prowess. Their “Gala Dinners” in various cities around the country have become big social events for local gay communities. When I asked a friend why he was attending HRC’s dinner in Los Angeles this past March, he commented he wanted to support the community and see the celebrities there.

When I pressed him on what he meant by supporting the community, he mentioned HRC’s work, but was unable to specify what exactly the group does. I wonder how many other people donate to HRC because that’s what, they believe, gay people with a community conscience are “supposed” to do.

That particular supporter couldn’t identify one HRC accomplishment.

Well, they do succeed in raising lots of money. And I’m told they have a really nifty headquarters in Washington, D.C. Oh, and they get lots of people (at least in my neck of the woods) to plaster that blue-and-yellow sticker with HRC’s equal sign logo onto the bumpers of their car.

It seems that all too often gay political organizations are reluctant to address the anti-gay attitudes at the core of radical Islamism. They seem sometimes to style themselves as a part of a “Coalition of the Oppressed,” allied with all those at odds with Western governments and societies.

But, some do get it, even figures on the left. I take note in particular of blogger Michael Petrelis, very much a man of the left, but unwavering in criticizing human rights groups for neglecting the plight of gays in Iran and committed to standing up for gays persecuted around the globe.

Last night, I read of literary figure who gets it as well. Ian McEwan, author of the novel which inspired last year’s Oscar-nominated movie Atonement, referenced intolerance toward gays as one of the reasons he despises Islamism:

And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on — we know it well.

It’s nice to see a straight literary figure point out something that all too many gay organizations are reluctant to address.

(H/t: The Corner.)

Among the many troubling things the non-monogamous “married” man Eric Erbelding said to the New York Times was his repetition of the refrain we hear all too often, particularly from gay men, that “Men are pigs.”

Granted, given our natural inclination to (for lack of better term) to “spread our seed,” we men do seem to find it more difficult to control our sexual inclination. But, control it we can. The pig of this metaphor cannot.

Yes, monogamy is a greater challenge for men than it is for women. There just seems to be something in the makeup of our gender which we see readily when comparing gay men to lesbians, the former more eager to hook up, the latter to nest. I guess one reason I relate well to lesbians is that I just don’t get those who want a sexual encounter to end with the orgasm. But, many men do.

The point is that we men do have this instinct, but we also have the ability to control it, to see the body with whom we seek pleasure as human being with whom we can relate on more than just a physical level.

Marriage has long existed as an institution which channels our sexual instinct into a fulfilling emotional relationships. The fact that so many married men have remained faithful to their wives proves that men, unlike that metaphorical pig, can indeed be tamed and can commit to a monogamous relationship.

Indeed, many men elect monogamy even without the benefit of matrimony.

The expression, “men are pigs,” becomes an excuse to prevent men from the challenging and often embarrassing work of intimacy. That intimacy, getting to know each other often, as Rabbi Meier observed, causes us to reveal our weaknesses and vulnerabilities to our partner. And some men want to use our gender to dodge these challenges and avoid this exposure. And as an excuse for our sexual exploits.

If that’s how some men want to exercise their natural instinct, that’s their choice. But, recall that marriage is an institution which, for as long as we have recorded knowledge of it, has served to tame that instinct.

If men are pigs, we are not worthy of marriage. But, I’m not one who subscribes to that narrow notion of our gender. To be sure, we do have piggish qualities, but we also have more noble ones. And marriage helps bring the latter out. At least it should.

Related: Gay Men, Vulnerability & Relationship

Shortly after I first discovered Andrew Sullivan’s writing in the New Republic in 1989, i started reading his work with great alacrity. As I was then struggling with coming out, I appreciated his unique perspective on the gay world. He did not subscribe to the orthodoxy which was making it difficult for me to believe I had anything in common with other outspoken men with whom I shared an attraction to our own gender.

When I started law school in 1991, I found it difficult to keep up with outside reading, such that I didn’t read Andrew’s stuff as regularly as I would have liked. When I had more time after I graduated in 1994, I found he had lost some of the acuity he had had when I first discovered him. He seemed to be trying to appeal to the gay ideology which in so eloquently and effectively opposing, he had helped secure his own standing in the world of political punditry.

Tired of the increasing mushiness of his writing, I stopped reading his stuff, only to resume again in 1998 when I picked up his book Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival in a Washington, D.C-bookstore and started reading. Unable to put it down, I bought it. That very month, I read his piece Sex, lies, and … us – criticism of gay and lesbian support for Bill Clinton in the Advocate, delighted to discover a gay writer taking issue with the prevailing gay political orthodoxy in our nation’s capital, that the then-incubment president was a hero to our community.

I would read Andrew regularly for the next five-and-one-half years, even donating to his blog when it became, in 2003, the first I checked daily. But, by the 2004 campaign, he had become so emotional when discussing the president, I no longer paid him much heed, only reading his posts when other bloggers linked him, usually to mock him for his hyperventilations.

Perhaps, he still had some sensible things to say. I just didn’t see them all that regularly, for, as with Glenn Greenwald, I tended only to see his blog in those moments of excess. On Friday, when searching his blog as part of the research for my post on gay marriage advocates and monogamy, I chanced upon two posts which showed he had retained some sense. In one, he acknowledged he was wrong when he predicted the failure of the surge. In another, he expressed concerns about the “soak-the-successful” aspect of Obama’s tax proposals.” He he has normally been an overenthusiastic cheerleader for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

(more…)

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer…

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.” (The Guardian)

One wonders if this fellow went to Andover? On the one hand I would dearly love such a ‘trial’ to expose schmucks like Hansen and the drivel they peddle, but on the other I have to wonder just how much of a kangaroo court this whole process would really be. Eh, if dissension constitutes a ‘war crime’ then perhaps we’ll get to put these folks on trial one day. I’m thinking fraud for starters…

–John (Average Gay Joe)

Those who read this blog know how regularly I have taken issue with gay marriage advocates for failing to offer strong arguments for the cause they so fervently espouse. For as long as I have been critiquing the great majority of those who speak out on this important topic, I have praised Jonathan Rauch for putting forward serious arguments in defense of gay marriage.

I have repeatedly cited the chapter, “What is Marriage For” in his book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America as getting at the meaning of marriage.

On Saturday in a piece in the Wall Street Journal, Jonathan once again made a strong argument for gay marriage. As with anything by Jonathan, just read the whole thing.

As did San Francisco Mayor Newsom last week, Rauch begins with the wedding of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. He contends that institutionalized gay marriage will encourage gay people to pursue relationships instead of settling for a life of random hookups. Unlike all too many advocates of gay marriage, Jonathan makes clear that he believes marriage is good thing as it “makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier.” Some advocates say that since the institution is flawed or falling apart, it makes no sense to exclude gays.

And Jonathan recognizes the landmark nature of our society’s recognition of same-sex marriage: “Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits.”

I have a quibble with a few of the points Jonathan makes and a couple of the arguments he offers. I regret that he doesn’t consider the issue of monogamy in his piece (perhaps due to its length). All that said, it is a thoughtful essay and merits your attention. If more people articulated the case for gay marriage as does Jonathan Rauch, then there would be little doubt as to the result of the initiative on the Golden State ballot this fall.

“We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice. And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940′s.” – Lawrence Velvel, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover (The Raw Story)

Well, ain’t this a beaut of an example of Bush Derangement Syndrome? Out for Dubya’s blood, eh? Curious though that an avowed lib would toss aside his scruples against the death penalty when it comes to the soon-to-be-former president. Then again, perhaps not. Many liberals have a “do as I say and not as I do” approach and that has certainly been true when it comes to Bush.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Back during the 2004 presidential campaign, the gay media, indeed all media, all but ignored gay Republicans (indeed all gay Americans) intending to vote for President Bush. I guess they assumed the number would be small because Log Cabin had failed to endorse the Republican nominee that year. All were surprised to see exit polls showing Bush receiving 23% of the gay vote that year.

This year, Pajamas Media is showing itself to me ahead of the curve, leaving the mainstream media in the dust, by posting my piece on a phenomenon other media (except blogs) have ignored, that of gay Democrats backing the presumptive Republican nominee in the current presidential contest.

Herewith a taste of my post:

Back in February while discussing the housing market with a relator active in the Los Angeles gay community, the conversation turned to politics. I learned that this friend who had helped raise money for Hillary Clinton’s White House bid intended to support John McCain should his candidate lose the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama.

At the time, I thought little of this exchange, assuming my friend’s opposition to his party’s then-frontrunner was an aberration, just one gay man who didn’t trust the junior Senator from Illinois. But, about a month later, in an Instant Message conversation a gay friend from New York who usually votes Democratic and then supported his own junior Senator’s presidential campaign, suggested he might vote for the Republican nominee that fall should Obama win.

He wouldn’t be the last. In the next month, I would talk to and overhear additional gay Democrats inclined to support John McCain in a fall match against Barack Obama.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.

Shortly after posting my piece, Will Gay Marriage Help Tame Men’s “Piggishness”?, I considered contacting the leading national gay organizations, California groups and other individuals at the forefront of the gay marriage debate to ask them how they felt Eric Erbelding’s comments in the New York Times might impact the movement for gay marriage, particularly the campaign to defeat the proposition on the Golden State ballot this fall.

Instead, I decided to check the websites of the various organizations and bloggers to see if in favoring extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, they recognized that marriage is based on the premise of monogamy. I also wonder if they sought to promote that notion in public statements on marriage.

To that end, I did a number of searches on the websites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Freedom to Marry, Equality California (EQ CA), the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and Andrew Sullivan’s blog. (I could not find a search feature on Log Cabin’s website nor on those of the pro-gay marriage Equality for All and LetCaliforniaRing sites.)

I did word searches (without quotation marks) for the following: “marriage monogamy,” “marriage monogamous,” “marriage fidelity” and “marriage adultery.” Researching this post took a lot longer than I had anticipated.

And while I found more references than I had anticipated when I did the “marriage monogamous” search, most other searches came up short. On the site of Freedom to Marry, the one national group devoted primarily to promoting gay marriage, my searches yielded almost nothing, with no hits on marriage monogamy and only six for marriage monogamous.

None of those six hits indicated the ostensibly pro-marriage group supported monogamous gay unions. The closest they got was a footnote in the linked report, Black Same-Sex Households in the United States, observing that “Many gay, bisexual and straight people are monogamous.”

Most of the references I found were to other faiths’ definition of marriage and the experiences of individual couples. Nowhere did I find an organization’s representative or blogger saying that he or she believed monogamy to be an essential feature of marriage.

(more…)

So says Austin Bay. (Via Instapundit)

Funny that the White House Press Secretary who helped facilitate an Administration’s decline in the polls writes a book while the one who helped save his boss from having a public relations disaster sink him doesn’t.

Scott McClellan, considered one of the least effective press secretaries in the history of presidential public relations gains his fifteen minutes of fame and media accolades (now all but over) by writing a book trashing his colleagues. Mike McCurry, however, considered one of the most successful such press secretaries, never wrote a book about his White House experiences.

I would love to learn about the challenges McCurry faced as he helped Bill Clinton save face.

Just an interesting irony of life that of two men who plied the same trade, the one who was less successful wrote the book. Almost as if Rommel wrote the book on military strategy in World War II while Patton, Montgomery, Eisenhower and Patton all remained silent.

And all this reminds me of another McClellan. It’s as if General George McClellan wrote a book on the Union’s military strategy in the Civil War while General Ulysses S. Grant did not.

UPDATE (only slightly related): Maybe I spoke too soon on McClellan’s fifteen minutes being all but over. Yahoo! (ever ressembling the MSM in its anti-Republican tilt) leads with this news item: Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak. If McClellan’s new views didn’t correspond with the MSM narrative, they wouldn’t pay him much any heed.

(more…)

This morning, while surfing the web, I chanced on yet another piece on a left-wing site attacking gay Republicans. This writer, the Huffington Post’s Gene Stone, must have thought himself particularly clever when he came up with the title for his April 2006 post, The Gay Republican: Oxymoron, or Just Moron?. But, all he really did was prove himself to be just another narrow-minded liberal insulting gay Republicans and/or conservatives and without making any effort to understand us. A man who prefers name-calling to thought or research.

Like Charles Kaiser, he just didn’t bother to contact any gay Republicans before writing his piece. Well, maybe he did, he just didn’t quote them in his 700-word diatribe. He makes some pretty sweeping generalizations and some pretty particular accusations such as “state republican (sic) parties have specifically told gay men and women they are not welcome in the party.” Um, Gene, could you please provide those specifics.

About the only piece of actual “evidence” he provides for Republican gay-bashing is that former New York City Mayor was “campaigning for arch-homophobes” as if the candidates in question (then-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and 2006 Iowa GOP gubernatorial hopeful Jim Nussle) had defined their entire political career by their animosity toward gay people, as if Rudy was campaigning for them precisely because they did not vote the way HRC wanted them to.

So he asks what he terms “the old question:”

Why would any gay man or woman belong to a party that has stated, over and over, as clearly as can be, without equivocation, that he or she is not welcome.

He provides no evidence whatsoever that the party has stated “over and over” in his view has told us we’re not welcome. Nor does he bother to consult any gay man or woman who belong to the party he so unfairly and inaccurately demonizes.

And that’s the point of this post. Those who harbor an animosity toward gay Republicans base their animosity not on the ideas and experiences of actual gay Republicans, but on their narrow view of Republican party.

Stone answers his “old question” by considering his own anti-Republican prejudices. To be sure, he doesn’t call them that. What liberal would admit to prejudice?  But it seems only such deep prejudice could account for such an inaccurate picture of the GOP.

(more…)

Back in June of 1992 when speaking to a gathering of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, then-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton, repudiated the African-American hip-hop artist/activist Lisa Williamson (AKA Sister Souljah) for her comments suggesting blacks should stop killing blacks and should instead “have a week” where they “kill white people.”

This became the first “Sister Souljah moment” where a politician excoriates an extremist associated with his political party in order to distance himself from such extremism and better appeal to the political center as Bill Clinton did so well in the 1992 campaign and indeed throughout his political career (well, except his first two years in the White House).

Now, his successor as presumptive Democratic nominee has a great opportunity for his own Sister Souljah moment. Via Instapundit, we learn that the Reverend Al Sharpton, a radical activist to whom Democratic presidential candidates traditionally pander despite his demagogic history, faces federal scrutiny with the “IRS sending out a flurry of subpoenas to his most generous corporate donors.”

While Sharpton calls this a “fishing expedition,”

The IRS and the US Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn have an ongoing probe into Sharpton’s finances going back to his 2004 run for president and stewardship of NAN [Sharpton's National Action Network].

Last year, [Democratic New York] state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began a probe of NAN because it failed to follow state financial-disclosure regulations for nonprofits.

Obama should demand that Sharpton and his donors comply with the subpoenas and promise that in an Obama Administration, the Justice Department would aggressively pursue this investigation, filing charges when warranted. He would say further that he believes the facts warrant an investigation given that “As of 2006, the most recent year that financial documents for the group [NAN] are publicly available, it owed $1.9 million in payroll taxes and penalties.”

Sharpton wouldn’t be able to play the race card against Obama (though he will certainly try). Obama’s candor on this issue could help distance himself from the angry New York minister. And could even have the added benefit of silencing this charlatan.

My pal, Dirty Harry, one of the best commentators on movies on the web, has just started a new blog, Dirty Harry’s Place. Check it out.

I loved his reviews and film comment when he was over at Libertas. With new digs comes a new mission statement, to:

. . . promote, aid, and encourage those in the entertainment community doing right by liberty and America.

. . . [to] shame those in the entertainment community still capable of feeling shame into doing right by liberty and America.

. . . [to] expose and ridicule the shameless who seek to do harm to liberty and America.

Sounds like a site this movie buff will turn to with frequency and alacrity.

To get a flavor of Dirty Harry’s work, just check out his posts honoring the great Chuck Heston when he passed two months ago: selecting some choice words from the star himself, providing a list of the Ten Best Heston films and noting what others are saying.

With posts like those, he’s sure to offer continued insight from his new space.

I can’t say I’m surprised. Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama has opted out of the public campaign finance system. Not that I don’t support his decision to forego public funding of his campaign. I would rather presidential campaigns didn’t drink from the federal trough.

What this does show is that despite his acolytes claim that the Illinois Senator brings a new kind of politics, despite his uplifting rhetoric, all we’re getting with this guy is the same old, same old.

Barack Obama is just a typical politician who will say or do anything to get elected.

His economic policy is nothing more than the tried and failed liberalism of the past forty plus years: address every problem with increased federal spending. And now, we see him inventing some excuse to break his pledge to take federal campaign funds “if his Republican rival did as well.” John McCain has pledged to do so.

Having since learned of his fundraising prowess, the Democrat knows it would put him at an advantage if he forewent federal financing. So, in order to advance his own interests, he broke his pledge but tried to dress it up as a problem of a “broken” public financing system. I agree the system is flawed and falling apart, but it’s been flawed and falling apart for some time — and was when he made his pledge.

But, I guess that’s just something else his campaign didn’t know about.

I doubt this latest revelation will stop his followers from swooning over him as the latest incarnation of a political savior.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin writes:

It would, of course, be ridiculous for Barack Obama to give up his fundraising advantage. On the other, doing something not in his own self-interest would allow Obama to demonstrate his bona fides as the architect of New Politics. Will John McCain make some hay? Only if he is able to demonstrate a larger theme of “phony Agent of Change” can he make any headway on this. After all, campaign finance reform — despite McCain’s best efforts — was never an issue to seize the popular imagination.

(Via Glenn.)

Mr. ManBearPig himself, Al Gore, has moved past his Nobel Prize fame and now earns a GayPatriot ”Profile In Courage” Award for finally bothering to endorse Barack Obama for President.

Gore resisted efforts to elicit his endorsement during the Democratic primaries, but he announced Monday in a letter to supporters that he intends “to do whatever I can to make sure [Obama] is elected President of the United States.” He also solicited donations from members of AlGore.com on behalf of Obama — the first time, he said, that he has asked his supporters to give to a political campaign.

How noble and sincere this Mr. Gore is!   He…really…makes…me……. cry.   Shame on us for not allowing him to steal the 2000 Election in selected Florida counties!

Maybe Algore took so long to endorse Sen. Obama because he was too busy upgrading his energy-guzzling house in Nashville.  (h/t – Instapundit)

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month —1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations — at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Liberal Climate Change Regulations — designed only for you lowly working-class folk who cling to your God & your guns.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Despite my opposition to court-mandated gay marriage, I thought it would be appropriate to highlight some developments this week from California and beyond.

First, some personal stories of the first-day of marriage ceremonies in San Francisco are chronicled at a website called the “Experience Project.”

The energy inside was very different from the energy outside. Most of the couples remained inside throughout their time at City Hall, and only emerged afterwards for a short while. But inside there were happy wedding parties, families, and well-wishers congratulating the soon-to-be-married couples holding their blank applications for a wedding license. In almost every statement made by the constantly interviewed couples, they stated that the fact that they could now be married made them feel like equal citizens in American society.

Second, Pittsburgh now allows city-sanctioned domestic partnership registries — and domestic benefits for city workers.

The Pittsburgh City Council gave final approval today to a domestic partner registry. The registry will provide a standard for employers to allow workers to share benefits with their partners. Openly gay city council member and former Victory Fund endorsee Bruce Kraus wrote the legislation.

The legislation passed by a vote of 7-1 and brought cheers from several people in the audience who were at the meeting to receive a proclamation for Pride Week events. Kraus said that the legislation shows that “Pittsburgh is in fact a very progressive and forward-thinking city.”

Log Cabin Republicans celebrates.

“Today, gay and lesbian couples will officially be recognized as families by the state government,” declared James Vaughn, Director of the California Log Cabin Republicans.  “We hear a lot about ‘family values’ and today, finally, gay and lesbian families in California are part of that equation.  All families deserve the opportunity to become part of a tradition that strengthens the foundation of society, just as our parents and grandparents before us.”

Finally, will there be a car-to-man marriage mandated by the courts in California someday?  The goats are taken.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Good heavens….

House Democrats responded to President’s Bush’s call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.

Ah, socialism.   The Democrats are at least finally being honest with America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)