Gay Patriot Header Image

You Say You Want A Revolution…

You know, if this were a map of, oh I don’t know…. anti-war protests against the Bush Administration in nearly every state in the USA…. there’d be national news coverage every day bordering on hysteria.

But since this is a map of ordinary Americans standing up spontaneously against the tyranny of Washington, DC spending — nary a peep. (h/t – Instapundit)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan):  About this map, the ever-insightful Jennifer Rubin offers:

You’d think a mass movement with hundreds of events in nearly every state would gain some more mainstream media attention. I wonder if the numbers attending will surpass the number of “pledges” (actual, not the triplicated copies) collected by the president’s perpetual campaign (Organizing America).

On the Exclusion of Gay Conservatives from Gay Marriage Confabs

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:10 pm - April 3, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Gay Politics

Perhaps one of the reasons gay activists prefer using the courts to advance their agenda is that it prevents them from having to consider conservative arguments and from appealing to conservative constituencies.  Instead of working to build a consensus on gay marriage, they only need make legal arguments to appeal to a narrow segment of the population.

But, if the leaders of the gay marriage movement reached out to gays on the right, they might better be able to appeal to the population at large.  While many of traditionally Democratic constituencies are averse to same-sex marriage, some Republicans, particularly those born after 1960, might, if better arguments were made, be persuaded to change their minds.

Gay men and women on the right (including many in the various chapters of Log Cabin) have worked with such individuals and understand their concerns.  We can help develop arguments to address those concerns and reach out to conservative leaders, like Ward Connerly, favorable to same-sex marriage, perhaps even persuading them to speak out on our behalf.

We would like to be part of the conversation on the direction of the gay movement.  If the leaders of the gay organizations continue to exclude us, as they did from LA’s “Townhall” earlier this week, they risk marginalizing themselves as left-wingers and making it easier for proponents of traditional marriage to present themselves as representing the mainstream of American society.

In short, the failure of the gay organizations to include gay conservatives increases the likelihood that they will fail to build a genuine societal consensus on gay marriage.

As I’ve written before, it’s a question of approach and attitude.  In approaching conservatives, the portion of the population to which we must appeal, many of us have gained a better idea of the attitude necessary to address them and their concerns.

Moveon: Debt Only Bad when Incurred by Republicans

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:14 pm - April 3, 2009.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Liberal Hypocrisy

Recalling how “BACK IN 2004, MOVEON MADE A POLITICAL SPOT about how Bush was saddling our kids with too much debt,” I got to wondering why that organization is helping Bush’s successor lobby for his budget which saddles our kids with much more debt that W’s budgets did.

The Gay Marriage Debate
and the Needed Overhaul of the Gay Leadership

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:35 pm - April 3, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Gay Politics

Last night, before the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was handed down, I scribbled a few notes outlining the things I wanted to blog on today. But, this medium being what it is, the news often gets in the way of the topics we might otherwise wish to address.

One thing which I did wish to consider, however, becomes particularly timely in the wake of the reaction of gay activists to the Hawkeye State decision. I had intended to write on the need for an overhaul of the leadership of the gay movement, replacing those with left-wing backgrounds with those who can appeal to more socially conservative citizens, those who still harbor a degree of animosity toward and/or ignorance of gay people.

They need to find people who can do what Mary Cheney did when she appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, provide an image of a normal gay American to those who do not readily have access to such imagery.

The Des Moines Register article includes this reaction from Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, to the decision:

I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest state in the mainstream of American thought . . . Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ˜As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’

So, is he saying that the decision of a court shows where the citizens of the state stand?

That same article cited a February 2008 poll which found that “62 percent of Iowans said they believed marriage should be only between a man and a woman.”

I might have greater understanding for tactic of using the courts to mandate state recognition of same-sex marriage if those pushing it had a parallel program to persuade the people of the merits of such an expansion of this ancient institution.

The problem remains that the leadership of the various gay organizations have few ideas about and little interest in appealing to most Americans. Instead of talking about marriage in the terms that most people use to debate the institution, they content themselves with making legal arguments to small groups of judges.


Iowa Supreme Court Mandates Gay Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:00 pm - April 3, 2009.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Here we go again.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman was unconstitutional and struck language saying as much from the Iowa code.

If the Hawkeye State has an initiative/referendum process for amending its constitution as does the Golden State, this represents yet another setback for gay marriage.  It will galvanize opponents of the institution.  My guess is that given the number of social conservatives in Iowa, they could succeed in gathering the requisite signatures within a month.

If more than 52% of Californians voted to overturn as similar decision, expect an even larger majority of Iowans to do the same.

As have all state supreme court decisions mandating the state to recognize same-sex marriages, this one will lead to a popular backlash.  When state supreme courts leave this matter to the states, support for popular initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman increases.  When they mandate gay marriage, they galvanize the opposition leading to a backlash at the ballot box.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Pink Elephant writes:

Amendments to the iowa consittuion require the proposed language to pass both houses in two separate sessions before it even gets on the ballot. Although it will galvanize opponents to same-sex marraige elsewhere, same-sex marriage in Iowa is safe for a while.

Given the state’s constitution, that sounds about right.

Hollywood Likes the Redeemed Hooker

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:30 am - April 3, 2009.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV,Random Thoughts

Last night, I watched L.A. Confidential for the first time since I had since it over a decade ago in its initial release.  And while I agree that it’s a great movie which stands up, I still don’t get those who define it as one of the greatest movies, if not the greatest movie, of the last decade.

First, of all, the writing, acting and set direction were superb.  I wish I could write dialogue like that!  But, there was a bit too much violence.  The shoot-out at the end was way over the top.

That said, one thing struck me about this movie was that it had a character who has many counterparts in American cinema, the redeemed hooker.  It seems we Americans like films where our heroes fall for the whore and rescue her from her “fallen” life, redeeming her through romance.  (Note to self: would a gay twist on this work?  Or did Jim Fall already do that with the touching Trick?  Nah, not quite . . . )

In L.A. Confidential, Kim Basinger plays Lynn Bracken who earns a living as a Veronica Lake lookalike turning tricks for a high class clientele.  But, Russell Crowe‘s Bud White, ever sensitive to abused woman, takes a fancy to the striking pseudo-blonde.  And that fancy blossoms into romance.

Just as Richard Gere had fallen for Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman and John Wayne for Claire Trevor in Stagecoach. Even Belle Watling (Ona Munson) achieves a certain redemption in Gone With the Wind.  Interesting, isn’t it that the prostitute in American movies is almost never the subject of reproach and always a candiate for redemption?

Maybe this is as much a commentary on Hollywood as it is on America:  we believe in second chances, that one’s youthful indiscretions do not prevent one from finding redemption and even romance.

Economic Advice From the Chairman of General Motors

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:30 am - April 3, 2009.
Filed under: Economy,Entrepreneurs

No, not the one the president fired, the one who served during the Great Depression, you know that economic downturn which lingered long after the implementation of FDR’s New Deal.  This is from
Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., Chairman of the Board of GM from 1937 to 1956 and CEO from 1923 to 1946, written in 1940:

…..I begin to think about the situation that exists in business and industry in this great country of ours – a land of potential promise and opportunity – at least, so it always has been.  As I write, we have millions of people unemployed, who seek an opportunity to work.  Despite the fact that our government has been creating billions of dollars of indebtedness millions remain idle….We have hundreds of millions of dollars lying idle in our banks….  As a country, we are blessed, with out measure, with almost every essential natural resource.  We have the finest producing plants supported by the most progressive manufacturing technique that ever existed anywhere.  As a people, we are willing to work if given the chance.  Yet in a land of such abundance we live in a state of relative scarcity, for too many have much too little.

Some political leaders have tried to convince us that our idle money is a result of a static economy.  They even talk about the desirability of a tax to penalize efficiency, with the objective of reducing unemployment – incomprehensible to anyone familiar with the workings of our industrial system.  Then they develop a scheme of taxation, supposedly for revenue but actually resulting in penalizing business and industrial development, and so confiscatory in character as to prejudice the whole profit motive.  Then they preach the gospel that accomplishment is a crime – the greater the accomplishment, the greater the crime.  They teach the concept of something for nothing.  This, in one form or another, has influenced our national economic thinking for may years.

(H/t: Reader Ken)

On Meeting David Frum:
Considering How To Adapt Conservative Ideas to a New Time

The main reason I penned, er, pixeled, this post yesterday was that I had wanted to complete it before I met David Frum who spoke last night to the Republican Jewish Coalition here in Los Angeles.

I have to say that my criticism of his remarks on Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding, I pretty much agreed with everything he had to say before he took questions.  One of those questions was from me.  Since I spoke spontaneously (without a teleprompter as did Frum), I don’t have an accurate transcription of that question. I will rephrase it as best I can.

After introducing myself and identifying this blog, he said, “I know your site.”  Honored by the recognition, I continued:

Had I not been coming here tonight to hear you speak, I would not have read your Newsweek article in large part because of the title and the periodical where it was appearing.  When I did read it, I found I agreed with about 80% of what you said, particularly your point on health care.  But, I wonder what you felt it necessary to repeat Rahm Emanuel’s talking points on Rush Limbaugh.

He answered by repeating much of what he had said in the article linked above, highlighting that the talk show host was particularly unpopular among young people and women.  What impressed me about his response was the courtesy he showed me.  He allowed me to ask a followup, then gave me credit for not interrupting him and listening.

I thought it was a touch of grace because he could probably tell I was itching for a debate.  (We did continue this debate after the Q & A, but the exchange while spirited, was understandably interrupted by others who wanted to talk to him.)

The one fault I will make of him–and it’s a big one is that he seems to harbor a good deal of resentment for conservative talk show host on radio and television.  Perhaps, it’s because they’ve criticized him.

If, however, he wants them to hear his message he needs be more magnanimous and refrain from attacking them, reminding them that he’s on the side and shares some of the same goals they do.  Indeed, he talked about building a broad-based coalition, saying, “You can’t get anywhere by firing the base.”  He also said, “You can’t win by being anti-gay.”