Gay Patriot Header Image

The Real Agenda of the Leaders of “No on 8”

You’ll have to forgive me for not participating in the LA Gay Center’s Virtual Townhall meeting, underway as I write and edit this. All questions have to pass through a moderator. And I wonder if this moderator will let through tough questions which might force the leaders of the “No on 8” campaign to consider their own responsibility for the failed campaign.  To wonder why they have failed to engage in any introspection since the ballot measure passed.

I doubt these left-of-center individuals even consider my question:

With a leadership which well represents its left-wing donor base, how do gay groups reach out to social moderates and conservatives whom we most need to move on the question of gay marriage?

It’s not just gay conservatives who are critical of the “No on 8” campaign for failing to reach out to political conservatives, gays are on the left are also incensed. At his blog, gay left-winger (I say that as a description not an insult) Michael Petrelis has been taking on the complacency of what he calls Gay Inc. He faults gay leaders supposedly dedicated to defeating 8 for their paltry contributions to the cause.

Noting how former HRC chief Elizabeth Birch gave nearly fourteen times as much to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as she did to the “No on 8” campaign, Petrelis believes this “reveals how Birch, like HRC, is definitely more interested in putting money into electing Democrats than advancing gay equality.

Michael, we’ve been saying that for years.

Petrelis isn’t the only one who thinks gay leaders are dodging accountability for Prop 8’s passage.  In the LA Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald notes that on the November 13 Williams Institute “panel of experts to discuss the Proposition 8 loss:”

rather than finding an independent moderator, [Executive Director Brad] Sears turned over those duties to “No on 8” campaign director Patrick Guerriero, who certainly had an interest in damage control. Sears’ decision was the first sign that “No on 8” leaders were going to take full control of the evening.

As McDonald notes, all questions to that panel passed through that moderator. Read the whole thing!

To borrow a phrase from the Gipper, those panelists (and those in tonight’s virtual town hall) have “made a career of heading organizations.” They are less interested in solving problems than they are in maintaining their own prominence. And helping elect Democrats

Obama to betray “lefties” as W betrayed “righties”?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:48 pm - November 25, 2008.
Filed under: Economy,National Politics,Where W went wrong

Sort of reiterating a point I made two-and-one-half years ago, Glenn Reynolds observed yesterday that as lefties are now worried about the coming Obama betrayal, “righties have been blaming Bush that way for years, so I guess it’s only fair that it’s someone else’s turn now . . . .

Just another reminder that while so many in the media blame the current economic mess on conservative policies, the outgoing incumbent president failed to implement many conservative reforms.  Yeah, he passed tax cuts and those seem to have helped us get out of the recessions left by his predecessor and magnified by 9/11, but he didn’t offer corresponding cuts in federal spending or effect any serious deregulation of the economy.

Since there was no conservative reform of the financial markets these past eight years, conservative policies cannot be responsible for their failure.

His successes see to lie in the areas where he was most conservative:  standing up to threats abroad and protecting us at home.

The word games of Prop 8 opponents

Just by readig statements from the national gay organizations and their allies, you’d think that it was opponents of gay marriage who seek to change society by taking away a “right” long since recognized by American governments.  They act as if marriage has always been defined as a union between two loving individuals, rather than one between individuals of different genders.

Until they understand that they are the ones pushing for change and can make a compelling case for that change, they won’t be able to convince wary citizens who define marriage by that gender difference of the need to expand the definition of the institution to include same-sex couples.

Now, via an e-mail from a national gay organization, I witness yet again the advocates of gay marriage twist reality to advance their cause.  Last week, in a release announcing that the California Supreme Court would hear challenges to Proposition 8, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) release reported:

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was “Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,” the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take away an existing right only for a particular group.

Gosh, it seems their understanding of history goes back to sometime this summer.  The proponents of the ultimately successful ballot initiative did not author the ballot language.  The Democratic Attorney General (and initiative opponent) Jerry Brown did.  Amazing that the opponents of Prop 8 would rely a tactic by an initiative opponent, opposed by the authors of the initiative, to overturn it.  What a cheap rhetorical (and perhaps also judicial, depending on the language of their brief) stunt.

That “right” only existed because the state Supreme Court said in May that it did.  It was not part of the original meaning of the constitution nor could it have even been inferred given that, until about fifteen years ago (or so) no one ever thought of marriage as anything but a union between a man and a woman.

The initiative is not changing the constitution to take away a right that was there.  It is changing the state Constitution to prevent courts from finding things there that its framers never intended.

I would rather the new amendment not be part of the state constitution, but regret that those who seek to remove it were not playing word games with California constitution.  And wish they could make a better case for the change they wish to effect.

Oh Happy Day, Oh Happy, Happy!

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:55 pm - November 25, 2008.
Filed under: Family

The younger PatriotSisterWest gave birth this morning to her first child, the now youngest PatriotNephewWest.  My financial health is further threatened.  I finally have a nibling in the Golden State.  More trips to San Francisco are planned.

Our Critics Silent about Democrats’ Proposed Profligacy

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:16 am - November 25, 2008.
Filed under: Liberals,Republican-hatred

Given how some of our critics responded to my post on how Democrats see government spending as the solution to every domestic problem, it appears their business in life is to attack Republicans.  If you didn’t follow current events, you might take their tone to mean their side had lost the most recent national elections.

In their zeal to criticize us and the GOP, they neglect to acknowledge how frequently we’ve criticized Bush and Republicans for their spendthrift ways, contending the GOP lost its congressional majorities in 2006 in large part because its leaders failed to contain spending and constrain the growth of the federal government.

And now with their proposed stimulus plan, Democrats seem bent on continuing the spending record of the current Democratic Congress and the most recent Republican ones, albeit with greater rates of increase.

Note how our critics don’t bother to challenge my premise (that the Democrats, like Carroll’s Queen, have one way of addressing all (domestic) difficulties–increase spending.  So, caught up in the past are they that they’d rather attack Republicans for their failures which, even this Republican blogger contends, cost them their majorities.

As they criticize Republican for their past spendthrift ways, these critics remain silent about their party’s proposed profligacy.

As I wrote the day after the election, I feel a strange sense of liberation now that a spendthrift Republican Administration is on its way out.  Yet, our critics seem unconcerned that the leadership of the party elected to replace it appears increasingly eager to outspend him.