Gay Patriot Header Image

How a Reasonable Person Should Respond to Carrie Prejean

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:00 pm - May 11, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

Few in the media or left-wing blogosphere seem to be heeding my advice to ignore Carrie Prejean. Just yesterday, while doing cardio at the gym, I looked up to see the bleach blonde beauty queen featured in a segment on CNN.

Has any beauty queen received as much attention as she?

Given the hysterical reaction of many outspoken gay marriage advocates to her statement supporting the traditional definition of marriage, I decided to offer a rational response to that civil statement:

We’re delighted you responded in a civil tone:

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.

She’s right that we can choose same-sex marriage, the difference is that only a few states recognize those unions.  Yes, we have that freedom, but same-sex couples in most states don’t get the benefits which accrue to those who “choose” traditional marriage.

And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

We respect that you stated this belief without denigrating gay people.  Let us hope that those social conservatives who now herald you for articulating a position near and dear to their hearts will follow suit.  Instead of attacking gay people, they will defend the longstanding definition of this ancient and honorable institution.

You needn’t worry, however.  We’re not asking you to change your beliefs.  With religious liberty provisions like those in the Vermont and Maine legislation recognizing same-sex marriages, your church would remain free to continue define marriage as it has always defined it.  These laws are only about civil marriage and do not impact the practices of particular religious institutions.

Once again, we appreciate you responded in such a civil manner.  While we don’t agree with your views, we certainly support your right to express them.  It’s unfortunate that after posing his question in such a civil manner, Perez Hilton chose to personalize this issue by insulting you personally.  He was wrong to do so.


What Happened to the “Net Spending Cut” Obama Promised During the Campaign?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:18 pm - May 11, 2009.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Obama Watch

The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a staggering $1.8 trillion today.

Dinner with Athena at the Reagan Library on May 21

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:42 pm - May 11, 2009.
Filed under: LA Stories,Ronald Reagan

I just RSVPed to dine with the pundit I call Athena (Peggy Noonan) when she’ll be at the Reagan Library on May 21.  Click here to learn more about the event.  Maybe we can get a group of readers together to meet this great lady and pay tribute to her one-time boss.

Drop me a note if you’ll be joining us.

Rope as a measure of gays’ cinematic progress

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:28 am - May 11, 2009.
Filed under: Gay America,Movies/Film & TV,Random Thoughts

Not in the mood for large crowds this weekend, I was pretty much a homebody, reading a lot and watching the latest movies to arrive from Netflix.  All three I had seen before, one holding up better than the other two, perhaps, in part, because it was shorter, but largely because it provided a window into how much things have improved for gay people in American society.

I first saw the original Planet of the Apes; did not engage me as much as it did when I regularly caught it on TV as a child.  Spartacus, the film I just saw, seemed to require a bigger screen for the second viewing.  While many scenes were really quite stirring, the story seemed less compelling given that I had recently a book detailing the actual story of that eponymous slave’s fight for freedom as best as military historian Barry Strauss could reconstruct it.

Like Mel Gibson with Braveheart, Stanley Kubrick turned a historical hero into a martyr for liberty.

But, the movie which kept me thinking — and not just about its subject matter — was Alfred Hitchcock‘s 1948 classic Rope.

Here, the protagonists are a gay couple (though not called as much), one, a pretentious, self-important snob (John Dall‘s Brandon) and the other, a neurotic drama queen (Farley Granger‘s Phillip).  They decide to murder a friend because they consider themselves intellectually superior.  Yet, once they’ve done the deed, Brandon becomes vainglorious while Phillip begins to feel remorse.  Yet, his conscience doesn’t make him reflective so much as overwrought.  Neither is portrayed sympathetically.  Nor should they be, considering what they’ve done.

Sixty years ago, that was how Hollywood portrayed homosexuals.  To be sure, there are gay people like Brandon, arrogant, full of themselves, thinking they are better than their fellows.  And we do have our share of drama queens–of many sorts.  But, while we are far more than those caricatures, such images were all we saw on the silver screen.

Now, sixty years later, we see images gay people portrayed as more than just cocksure killers.  We see them as the loyal friend to the protagonist, the supportive brother of a man trying to become a better father and the lover devoted by his partner’s passing.

We’re no longer relegated to the role of the degenerate reprobate. (more…)

Is the Left Making a Martyr of Rush Limbaugh?

Back in the 1990s, when gay bashing was de rigeur among certain segments of the right, a good number of Americans not favorably disposed to people like us became more sympathetic.  We Americans don’t have much stomach for scapegoating, at least not in the past forty years.

I have seen Republican candidates lose support from Republican voters in Northern Virginia when they made an issue of a candidate’s sexuality or referenced “homosexuals” overmuch in their campaigns.

By the same token, I’m beginning to see people even here in Hollywood become increasingly sympathetic to Carrie Prejean, not because they like her bleach-blonde hair or her views on gay marriage, but because they’ve  had enough with the media making mockery of her and her convictions.  Just like those Northern Virginia Republicans becoming annoyed at their fellow partisans fault the gays, they’d just rather people leave her alone.

And now, I wonder if the Administration’s attempt to destroy Rush Limbaugh will backfire and increase his standing not just with his conservative audience, but also with Americans not favorable disposed to his viewpoint  . . . or his persona.  At the White House Correspondent dinner on Saturday, Wanda Sykes laid only kid gloves on the President, while reserving her rancor for Republicans and their allies in the media, particularly Limbaugh.

She compared the talk show host, not present at the dinner, to Osama bin Laden:  “Because I think maybe he was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on Oxycontin that he missed his flight.”  Even she realized she went overboard.  Still, she later expressed the hope that his kidneys might fail.

Even self-professed liberal Democrat Nikki Finke thought “her overall performance was inappropriate for the room.”  (H/t:  Glenn.)

Like Perez Hilton insulting Carrie Prejean, Wanda Sykes, normally quite funny, assumed (quite correctly) that she could get away with replacing gentle jabs with nasty jugular thrusts.  Despite her abuse, Rush Limbaugh will do just fine.  I’m sure his opening monologue today will be one to remember.