When I followed Glenn’s link to these five ideas for the future of conservatism, I thought the student who penned pixeled them was onto something.

Or maybe that’s just because he recommends that David Petraeus run for president in 2012. That great general is my man for the GOP nomination.  He accomplished more in 2007 alone–and under most unfavorable circumstances, political as well as military–than did the president-elect in his entire political career.

That is, unless, you count election to office as an accomplishment.

While I share Armin Rosen’s (the author) enthusiam for Petraeus, I think his best point is his second, “DON’T GIVE UP ON SOCIAL CONSERVATISM. BUT DON’T EMPHASIZE IT EITHER.”  Anyone who has worked in GOP politics outside the coastal areas knows the energy and enthusiasm social conservatives bring to Republican campaigns. While I disagree with Rosen’s characterization of Rove-Palin “divide-and-conquer policies,” I agree when he writes that

conservatives have a lot to lose from giving up on them [social conservaives] altogether. A “hate the sin, not the sinner” tack should win back to the social center that’s been voting blue in recent years: basically, conservatives should promote traditional values without championing measures that would punish those who don’t.

Exactly.

In many ways, his point reminds me of a theory I have on how the party’s attitude toward gays will determine our success. It’s not that we’re likely to crack more than 35% of the gay vote (well, maybe 40%). But, to win back the suburbs, Republicans can’t alienate suburbanites. And anti-gay attitudes don’t resonate with individuals who have known gay people in college –and maybe even in the workplace–and even in their own families.

As I celebrate today the birthday of my favorite novelist, George Eliot, and my most beloved late great Aunt Ruth Friedman, a woman who in her life, embodied the qualities of a heroine of an Eliot novels, I had hoped to craft a different post than I had in years past.  But, as I reviewed that, I felt it was better than anything I could come up with this week.

So, I’ll repost that piece, but with a different introduction.

On Monday night, while browsing in Barnes and Noble, I chanced on that bookstore’s edition of Silas Marner which also includes two of Eliot’s short stories, “The Lifted Veil” and “Brother Jacob.”  Those two stories may be the only works of her fiction that I have not yet read. I started reading the first story and left with a copy of the book (paid for of course).

Last night, I watched the BBC version of the novel (featuring Ben Kingsley).  And the story got to me as the book always does.  It’s odd I who love books so much and am moved cry so little when I read (yet tear up frequently when watching movies).  Wwhenever I hear the story of the lonely weaver of Raveloe, however, whether in print, via the spoken word (i.e., book on tape/CD) or on screen, I am always touched, always lose it, so to speak it.

Ben Kingsley’s Silas plea to keep an apparently orphaned child who had strayed into his home, “It’s a lone thing; I’m a lone thing. . . . It’s come to me,” is the plea of every human being who has ever felt cut off from his fellows.  Indeed, that line in quintessetially George Eliot who so understood human loneliness and recognized our need for the companionship of our fellows.

And she delighted in the effect of a child on an adult with an open heart:

She [that child] was perfectly quiet now, but not asleep–only soothed by sweet porridge and warmth into that wide-gazing calm which makes us older human beings, with our inward turmoil, feel a certain awe in the presence of a little child, such as we feel before some quiet majesty or beauty in the earth or sky–before a steady glowing planet, or a full-flowered eglantine, or the bending trees over a silent pathway.

I rediscovered those words just a few nights ago. When I opened the book I had just purchased, I did not quite arrive at the short story I had just begun.  I plunged instead right back into the novel, starting this time in medias res, reading well over two chapters before sleep overtook me.

Such is the power of George Eliot’s prose, the images she invokes, the ideas she presents, the emotions she expresses. She helps us find words for our deepest thoughts and shows compassion for our everyday weaknesses. She seems to see into the troubles of all our lives and finds the balm in tender relations with our fellows.

Without further ado, my George Eliot birthday post:

There are holidays we all celebrate. And then there are the personal days, the anniversary of a wedding, the day we first met our beloved, the birthday of a friend, special relative or favorite writer. November 22 is one of those days for me. Not only does it mark the anniversary of the birth of a very dear great Aunt, my Aunt Ruth, who would have been 112 today, it is also the 189th anniversary of birth of the greatest English novelist, George Eliot.

(more…)

Kimberly A. Strassel thinks it’s possible:

Mr. McCain once joked that the press corps was his true “base,” only to see that constituency turn on him when he dared to act like a Republican. From the sounds of the cooing noises that greeted his concession speech, the media are now urging Mr. McCain to get back in their good graces. They will help by making sure that on any occasion Mr. McCain joins with his party he is ignored, while any time he strikes out on his own he is elevated to the “Republican standard bearer,” who is “leading” his party in a bipartisan direction. We’re about to discover if Mr. McCain’s long-term memory for slights extends to the Fourth Estate.

Via the Jewish Athena, I come across this comment from Rick Moran, “People who don’t take responsibility for their own failures aren’t worth spit. And there seems to be a lot of them in the McCain campaign.”

He points out that McCain’s campaign pollster called Frank Luntz a “moron.” Gosh, sounds just like the kind of name-calling we hear from the sore losers of the Prop 8 battle.

While some on the McCain campaign seem to be trying to pass the buck, thankfully, those likely to run the next Republican campaigns do seem to be engaged in serious reflection and self-examination.  We’re trying to grapple with why McCain lost–and what Republicans could have done to prevent it. Now, if only the leaders of gay organizations would try to consider why Prop 8 won — without calling their adversaries “haters.”

Haven’t heard much about Charlie Rangel’s failure to pay taxes on property he owns?  Barack Obama’s campaign fundraising shenanigans?  Of course not.  The MSM seems to ignore or bury scandals when the participant has a (D) after his name.

I guess that (D) provides some kind of shield against unethical or illegal behavior.

Well, now, as more information comes out about the extent to which Ohio officials investigated Joe the Plumber because he dared asked a tough question of then-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, at least the Columbus Dispatch is taking notice.  An inspector general’s investigation found that Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Department of Job and Family Services

. . . had no legitimate reasons to check on Toledo-area resident Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who was popularized as “Joe the Plumber” by Republican presidential candidate John McCain. It also confirmed she improperly used her state e-mail account to raise campaign money for President-elect Barack Obama.

Ohio’s Democratic Governor Ted Strickland is standing by Jones-Kelly, announcing that she’ll be “placed on unpaid leave for one month.”  State Auditor Mary Taylor urged “Gov. Strickland, who campaigned on the promise of running an ethical administration, to ask for the resignation or terminate Ms. Jones-Kelley immediately.”

I mean, c’mon, the governor “issued a directive to state agencies to better control access to information the state holds on Ohioans.”  State employees would realize he means business if there are consequences for improperly accessing such information and using state resources for partisan purposes, such as losing your job.

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican governor has failed to fire an official who improperly investigated a critic of a Republican?  The MSM would have canonized the critic as a courageous man who speaks truth to power.  So that any investigation of this noble soul would smack of heresy punishable by excommunication.  Or worse.

(H/t Instapundit.)

Thanks to GP reader Sean A for this hat tip, worthy of a lead post today….

EXCLUSIVE: Obama to delay repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – Washington Times

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military’s decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

“I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.

Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held “informal discussions” with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.

Once again, the lilly-livered Gay Left gets punched in the face while their tongues are firmly up the backside of the Democrat Party Establishment.

High-larious politics…. yet very disappointing, however predictable, from a gay rights policy perspective.

Just HOW many issues does the Hypocrite Rights Campaign and their fellow gay comrades have to lose before they are just laughed at and completely ignored??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): Uncanny, yet again. I had seen this news as well and intended to blog on it to show Obama’s pusillanimity and his indifference to gay issues despite the enthusiasm the gay groups offered for his candidacy and campaign. Not just that, this is probably the one issue facing gays where the tide has clearly turned in our favor. If handled properly, we could repeal this discriminatory and gratuitous legislation. Looks like I’ve have to do a followup on that last point.

Conservative Punk thinks so....

Sez ConPunk:

Fri Nov 21, 2008 – Is Obama turning into a hawk? Hillary voted for the war in Iraq…she’s in line for Secretary of State. Gates to remain at Defense. Looks like the doves got thrown under the bus.

One wonders… and hopes.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Shortly, after posting my piece on failure of gay groups to engage in any introspection following the passage of Proposition 8 and their silence on the eHarmony suit, I received an e-mail which cheered me somewhat about the direction of these organizations.

A reader close to one of the groups e-mailed me and said that some of the groups were worried about the legal precedent this could establish, fearful it could lead to straight people suing for access to gay sites.  That is why they maintained “radio silence” on the settlement.

While I am troubled by the silence of the groups, I am heartened that at least this one group was concerned about the implications of so using non-discrimination laws.  Its leaders at least have some notion of the concept of freedom.

Wish they would use that word more readily in discussing gay issues.

So, their silence, while not ideal, is at least a step in the right direction.

In the comments section to my post considering Michelle Malkin’s piece on the insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob, a number of readers faulted Michelle (and by extension) me because of our supposed hyperbole, attempting to define the protests by their most extreme participants.  To be sure, we should distinguish between those who protested peacefully and those who hurled angry slogans (or carried mean-spirited placards).

The former may have indeed been angry, but managed to contain their wrath as they rallied.  The latter, however, well deserved the description, “insane rage” that I borrowed from Michelle who, in turn, borrowed it from Paul Krugman, a left-wing columnist who used the expression to describe a handful of angry Republicans at McCain campaign events.  There have been far more angry activists protesting Proposition 8 than there were angry Republicans at such rallies.

I don’t think Michelle was trying to paint with a broad brush or contend that all protesters were gripped with “insane rage.”  I think she was just trying to point out that while those in the MSM were eager (based on a few isolated incidents) to find angry outbursts on the right, they all but ignore it when it comes from a non-conservatives groups.

And while Republicans (and conservatives) routinely denounced such excess, I have yet to see heads of gay organizations denouncing the extremism at the anti-8 rallies.  Indeed, some seem to encourage it by calling their adversaries haters.  To be sure, organizers of this past weekend’s rallies did encourage participants to “to avoid signs that single out a particular religious or ethnic group,” saying, “We must continue to garner support for our movement through positive and peaceful messages.”

I commend them for discouraging ad hominems and encouraging peaceful protest.

Yet, I remain unconvinced that the rallies represent anything more than a public display of anger, even if contained.  I just don’t see what they accomplish.

(more…)

hi human peeple.  this is saxby, the dog.  patriot pooch.   i need you all to help my friend and namesake, the good senator of georgia — saxby chambliss.

he is having to be in something called a run-off election.  and he needs money because all of those bad democrat cats are ganging up on him.   cats, bad.

please go to this link and help saxby.

thank you peeple.  gaypatriot dad just gave some money — i thought you should know that.

-saxby (patriotpooch)

I have theory about which I am so certain, I’m going to blog on it before I complete my research, indeed before I begin it.  If I’m wrong, I will make a $25 contribution to each gay group (Equality California, Freedom (sic) to Marry, NGLTF, NCLR, HRC and Lambda Legal Defense) about which I offer my prediction.

I predict that none of the gay groups will be criticizing the judicial intervention which forced eHarmony to offer a companion site offering dating services for gay couples.  None will be concerned about the implications of this settlement — that it could be used to limit the freedom of gay online services to cater exclusively to same-sex couples.

Furthermore, I predict that on none of the sites of the aforementioned groups will there be any serious introspection about the passage of Proposition 8.  Of course, people might quibble about the meaning of “serious.”  So, we may have to leave that open to debate.  Should the situation allow, I promise to be open to persuasion from those who weigh in in the comments section.

Now to post this, then to update as i check each site.  (To qualify for my contribution, criticism of the eHarmony settlement and serious introspection on Prop 8 must have appeared on their site before the publishing of this post, though i would certainly commend any statements which follow.)

ADDENDUM:  You’re welcome to forward me links to statements by the leaders of these organizations which may not appear on their web-sites.

UPDATE:  Searching the sites. . .

(more…)

As Dan reported a few days ago, Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Sammon has announced he is leaving his post at the national gay Republican organization after two years.

It seems there is more going on behind the scenes as well.  One of my very reliable LCR Board insiders tells me a shocking fact:  “Log Cabin is over $150,000 in debt.” 

And nearly the only source of income to Log Cabin lately is from none other than the Gay Left’s version of George Soros:  the infamous Tim Gill.   We have tracked Gill’s ties to Soros and Log Cabin extensively over the years here at GayPatriot.

So with Log Cabin leaderless and in serious debt…. is Tim Gill poised to take over the organization for good and move the “Gay Republican” organization permanently to the Gay Radical Left?

Only time will tell.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Will the attempt of the gay activists to impose equality through the courts never cease?

Not content with the numerous websites offering to match him with a male partner, a gay New Jersey man sued eHarmony, a dating service catering to Christians, because it would not match him with a male partner.

I guess maybe I should sue to make sure they provide services for Jews.  And while I’m at it, maybe we’ll have a Christian sue Jdate, “The Leading Jewish Singles Network.”

This is nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit.  He just felt hurt because a website offered dating services for heterosexuals, but not for him.  His plea for equality has succeeded.  With the help of the New Jersey Attorney General, he forced eHarmony to settle.*  It will now offer a companion site for same-sex matches.

eHarmony has now lost its freedom to offer the kind of dating services its founder wished to provide.  Commenting on a similar suit well over a year ago, I wrote:

The issue here is freedom. It’s a shame that in their zeal to root out all discrimination (or perceived discrimination), some gay activists seek to undermine the freedom of others. Their freedom to speak as they will, to associate with whom they choose and to seek romance with the types of people with whom they hope to find intimacy.

Just as eHarmony should be free to focus on heterosexual romance, so should gay.com be free to promote gay relationships.

What is it which so upsets this man about a service which caters to heterosexuals? So what? We don’t see straight people trying to gain access to services which cater to those seeking same-sex relationships.

Michelle suggests that maybe they should try to gain access to such services:

Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their business. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.

Without such suits, it would be freedom for me, but not for thee.

——–

*Like Michelle, I wish they hadn’t settled, but Theodore Olson, attorney for eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren, said:

Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business. . . .  we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.

In her latest column, The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob, Michelle Malkin makes pretty much the same point I’ve been making for nearly two weeks now:  “Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.”

She details some of the antics, even providing the video evidence.  So, just read (and watch) the whole thing.

As I’ve been following Michelle’s coverage of the rallies, a thought about her readers occurred to me.  I wondered if some delight in the juvenile behavior of gays as it makes it easier for them to dismiss the legitimacy of the case for state recognition of same-sex marriage.

While they might get some satisfaction from reading about the rallies, I find them embarrassing.  They do not present our community in the best light.  When I see friends who have assumed the responsibilities of marriage, building a home together and looking out for each other, or, in one case, helping a partner overcome his alcohol problem, then raising a child together, I wish they–and not the screaming activists–were the face of our movement.

We might make more headway if they were.

On Monday, after dinner at the Farmers Market, a friend and I browsed in the shops in the Grove, the shopping plaza immediately adjacent.  His suggestion that we visit the How to Bankrupt Your Uncle American Girl store proved a costly one for me.

You see, the following day, the TwinPatriotNiecesWest would be celebrating their birthday.  And I’m always trying to get gifts for my niblings which reflect their passions.  It was easy enough to get a gift for one of the twins, as she specifically requested a black-footed ferret (stuffed not live).  I just googled the animal and was in business (but not exactly the right kind of business as I’ll explain anon).

Well, unlike her animal-loving twin, Laura (not her real name) has a passion for classical music.  But, she’s not quite old enough for Amadeus.  Which brings me to Monday night.  So, my friend and I walk into the store.  And there in a little display cabinet, I see a doll “playing” a toy piano.  Imagining that Laura would love that piano, I asked if it were for sale.  It was.  Would they ship it?  They would.

You can figure out the rest.

When I spoke with my niece the following day, she was excited about getting such a piano for her American Girl doll.

Now, back to the black-footed ferret.  I had already bought a stuffed one for next Jane Goodall, Laura’s animal-loving sister.  I’d even arranged to “adopt” one for her  When I told her this, she was excited about the two stuffed animals she’d get with her adoptions.  Two?  I wondered (but not out loud).  I had to order the one independently of the adoption.

Back online I went and sure enough, the World Wildlife Fund offers an adoption kit with two plushes.  I couldn’t possibly disappoint this niece.  Not just that.  I’d already spent more on her sister’s present.  With the second adoption, it would be about equal.

I adopted again.  So, now do you get my title?

—————–

*And you’ll love it when they do.

For the past week or so, I’ve been wondering if some of those organizing the rallies against Proposition 8 hope to influence the California Supreme Court, using the appearance of social unrest as a means to push the court to overturn the popular proposition.

It looks like the unhappy activists may get their way. The state Supreme Court will hear a challenge to “the legality” of Proposition 8.  At issue is whether Proposition 8 is a revision to the state constitution or an amendment:

Unlike constitutional amendments, which can qualify for the ballot with signatures on initiative petitions, revisions can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a state constitutional convention.

The state’s high court has defined a constitutional revision as a fundamental change in government structure and has struck down only two initiatives as revisions. The last time was in 1991, when the court overturned provisions of a measure that would have required California courts to follow federal standards on criminal defendants’ rights rather than relying on the state Constitution to grant broader rights.

I contend it’s an amendment not a revision.  The constitution’s silence on the standards for marriage argues against the notion that Prop 8 revises the fundamental structure of California government and the basic rights it protects.

For it to revise, it would have to alter language in that document itself. All it does is add a provision which changes only the state Supreme Court’s understanding of the document, an understanding based on finding a notion (”dignity”) in the constitution which just isn’t there.

(When I searched the state constitution for that word, I found it only in Article 1, §28 (a)(2) on the treatment of victims of crime.)

Unless the opponents of Proposition 8 can provide evidence that the framers of the California constitution intended the state to recognize same-sex marriage, I don’t think they have much of a case. The “right” that activists claim exist was created by the state Supreme Court only this past May.

While I hope the court allows those who got married in recent months to retain the state recognition of their unions, I do believe the Court should let Proposition 8 stand, not because I like the idea of a provision defining marriage in our state constitution, but because I prefer democracy to oligarchy. And we’d have the latter if four justices were allowed to determine the state’s standards for marriage.

The antics of those upset by the success of the initiative suggest that all too many of them aren’t ready for the responsibilities of marriage. That said, many gay people are. It’s too bad they’re not leading the debate on this issue.

[Please note I revised this post slightly to correct typos and to clean up a few paragraphs.]

Imagine, if you will, that in order to protest the outcome of the recent elections, some leading Republicans declared a “Day Without Republicans,” encouraging those disappointed with the election results to “call in Republican” to work and stay at home all day.

Well, some sore losers of the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 are doing just that with their latest childish antic, declaring December 10 a “Day Without a Gay” when people “call in gay” to work.  Can’t these people grow up and instead of extending their temper tantrum, actually work on promoting the idea of gay marriage?

If they’re not adult enough to handle a political setback, are they adult enough to assume the obligations of marriage?  I know that many gay people have assumed such obligations and have shown that they are up to the task.  Shouldn’t these individuals be telling those demonstrating to chill and work on a more adult solution to the current situation, like actually promoting the merits of gay marriage?

Even gay leaders have demonstrated a childish attitude toward defeat at the ballot box.  In an extended rant on her blog, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Executive Director Kate Kendell says “there will never be acceptance” of the result. That’s not leadership.  That’s refusal to accept reality.  And it’s childish.

Just by following the antics of gay activists and reading the public statements of the heads of gay organizations, I would assume that gay people aren’t up to the obligations of gay marriage.  Fortunately, I know gay couples who take their marriages seriously.  That’s why I opposed Proposition 8.

Think about that statement for a minute.  Okay?

Now, let me explain again for those who, like Miss Kendell, refuse to accept reality.  I’m a gay guy.  I socialize with gay people.  I know many who favor gay marriage, have gotten married and who take the institution and their vows seriously.  That’s why I voted “No.”  Unlike me (and others in coastal metropolitan areas), many Californians do not know such couples.  A good number of them voted, “Yes.”  

You’re not going to change their votes by acting like children who didn’t get the toy they wanted for Christmas.

Instead of continuing this temper tantrum, advocates of gay marriage should, unlike Miss Kendell, say that they accept the results of Prop 8.  The should show respect for those who have serious concerns about changing an institution defined for millennia by gender difference.   They must refuse to define advocacy of traditional marriage as hate.  And they must accept their obligation to make the case why this is a good thing.

Most have refused that obligation, resorting instead to repeating their mantra that gay marriage is a civl right without explaining why that it is so (except to quote the Loving decision).  Or blathering on about how the Proposition eliminates a right-as if the state had long recognized same-sex marriages.

I now wonder if mayber I should have voted, “Yes,” on 8 in order to remind advocates of same-sex marriage of their failure to make the case for gay marriage.

RELATED:  Michelle Malkin’s The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob: “Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.”

To console myself in the wake of big-government victories at the ballot box (even if the Democrats didn’t campaign as such), I’ve been reading lots of Reagan in order to remind me of a Republican who could articulate opposition to such a statist agenda.

Last night, while reading randomly in Reagan: A Life In Letters, I chanced on a passage which, while written in 1982, could be used to describe the heads of national gay organizations:

I’m in agreement with you about some of our so-called leaders. For some time now I’ve wondered whether many of those who’ve made a career of heading organizations, whatever the cause, don’t really want the problems solved because then their jobs would be gone.

No wonder none of the gay leaders are taking responsibility for the passage of Proposition 8. Admitting their errors might threaten what really matters to them: keeping their jobs.

President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to tap former Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General as Attorney General sees to indicate that his campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, he’s going to govern as an establishment Democrat.

Holder was a not just Clinton Administration insider, he also brings with him some of the Clintons’ ethical baggage.  As Jennifer Rubin details, his conduct in the pardon of fugitive Mark Rich in the dying hours of that Administration was cited as “unconscionable.” Some kind new of politics.

While Obama campaigned on changing Washington, Holder has spent his entire professional career in the nation’s capital where he doesn’t have a record (or the reputation) of someone who shakes things up.

Interesting that Holder is the first cabinet appointee whom the president-elect has tapped (at least that we know about).  This follows the appointment of several former Clinton officials to the incoming White House staff.  It looks like Obama’s team is building a team not just of Clinton insiders, but also of Washington insiders as well. This is not change.  This is more of the same.

As the pro-Hillary hillbuzz puts it, Holder

. . . actually seems like a candidate Hillary Clinton would have picked had she won this year — which makes us ask just how much “change” Obama intends to bring if most of his Cabinet picks are all Clinton Administration people. Not that we’re complaining, but it’s a stark contrast to the rhetoric of his campaign in the primaries where he was all about distancing himself from the Clintons, and now it looks like just about every post will be filled with Clinton people. All of this might be a good indicator of “change” meeting “reality”.

(Via Instapundit.)

No wonder I’m finding it difficult to trust the president-elect.

UPDATE:  Some Obama fans aren’t happy:  ”These guys didn’t put together a campaign in order to turn the government over to the Clintons.”

In the immediate aftermath of Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections, Ken Mehlman announced his resignation from the chairmanship of the Repubilcan National Committee.  It is commonplace in politics for leaders of such organizations to resign in the face of electoral defeat.

Two weeks ago today, citizens in three states approved amendments to their respective constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Nearly every gay group across the nation rallied to defeat these ballot measures.  This was not the first time they had failed to sway voters.

Only one leader of gay organization committed to defeating such initiatives has stepped down since November 4.  (That leader is the head of the only national gay Republican organization.)

Instead of clearing the decks and making way for new leadership and new strategies, the other national gay organizations (as those in the Golden State) are retaining their current leadership and have so far given no indication that they intend to develop a new strategy to promote their agenda.

Since the institution of marriage involves assuming certain responsibilities in order to receive benefits from the state, shouldn’t gay organizations show their understanding of this concept by taking some responsibility for their failure to defeat these propositions?