Gay Patriot Header Image

Donald Trump Attempts to Bridge Carrie Prejean “Fault line”

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:47 pm - May 12, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

The whole Carrie Prejean hullabaloo has revealed a fault line in American culture, between the politically correct purveyors of information and ideas in our mainstream media and left-leaning blogs on the one hand and social conservatives, their occasional allies on the secular right and others who favor civil discourse of controversial issues on the other.  Some indeed who, on this issue at least, find themselves on the social conservatives’ side,  do not share their ideological agenda, indeed often quite strenuously oppose it, but do believe in their right to express their opinions, particularly when they do so in a civil manner.

Donald Trump today, in an example of leadership which should inspire the President who won that office promising to change the partisan tone in our nation’s capital, attempted to bridge that gap in American culture while strongly defending Miss Prejean’s right to express her opinion, reminding us that she gave the same answer on gay marriage “that the president of the United States gave. . . . She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.” 

Trump refused to criticize anyone by name, parrying a question about Perez Hilton by saying effectively, “That’s just what he does.”  He wisely refused to express his own opinion on gay marriage.

His was a masterful performance.  He stood by a woman who had been maligned in the media and made a plea for civil discourse.  Would that more prominent public figures do the same.

The issue here is not gay marriage per se, but how we debate it.  Let’s learn from Donald Trump and show some respect for those who express their opinions in a civil manner.  

This whole hullabaloo has shown that there is a fault line with those who would debate this issue and those who would smear the defenders of the status quo.  Until today, it appeared that the maligners were winning in the media while the great majority of Americans sat silent, stunned at the attacks. 

Let us hope that Donald Trump’s defense of Miss Prejean will cause others who favor a serious discussion of this controversial issue to speak out against name-calling and to engage in a real conversation about the meaning of marriage, its place in our ever-changing society and government’s role vis à vis this ancient institution.  We would all benefit from that conversation.

Kudos to Donald Trump for doing something to further than exchange.

DADT Prevents Dedicated Soldier from Serving

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:25 pm - May 12, 2009.
Filed under: DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell),Gays In Military

Kudos to CNN for featuring Lt. Daniel Choi on its American Morning program.  The more people see this great American, the more they’ll see the folly of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy barring gay people from serving openly in our nation’s armed forces.

As you may recall, Lt. Choi is a West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran about to be dismissed from the military because he came out publicly as gay.

In his letter to the President, this soldier writes:

My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.

Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.

After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.

Here, we have an American who wants to serve his nation and help protect his fellow citizens.  His very record shows him to be qualified.  His colleagues don’t find his sexuality a detriment to his service.

He asks the President not to fire him, telling his commander-in-chief that he loves his job:  “I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.”

We should want more men like Lt. Choi in our armed forces.  But, DADT means that we get fewer.  Repealing this law would strengthen our armed forces by increasing the pool of qualified men and women from which they could draw.  Not just that, it would save the military from wasting time rooting out gay service members when it could be training them to better defend this great nation.

Why Does Bruce Get All the Credit?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:08 pm - May 12, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging

🙂

If more gays were like GayPatriot, they’d probably have a better shot at all of the goodies they want.

Key West Scavenger Hunt Contunues

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:14 pm - May 12, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Travel,Vacation Blogging

The contest continues! Find me in Key West for $100. Details and a timely clue at GayPatriot at Twitter

Find me! Find me!!

Advance Clue: We will be watching American Idol at Bourbon St. Pub on Duval Street tonight.

Donald Trump: Carrie Prejean to remain Miss California
Politically Correct Don’t Get their Pound of Flesh

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 11:19 am - May 12, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Free Speech,Freedom,Gay Marriage

Just watching Donald Trump address a press conference in New York City; he has said that despite efforts of the politically correct to strip her of her crown, Carrie Prejean will remain Miss California.  The Donald said she has taken a large amount of abuse from people “who shouldn’t be handing out abuse.”

(more…)

Golden State’s May 19 Ballot Measures:
First Electoral Test for Tea Party Movement

Perhaps because I only watch local television when I’m doing cardio at the gym, I have yet to see an ad urging California citizens to vote against the budget measures on next week’s state ballot.  I have seen a plethora of publicity promoting the six propositions, including (snail) mailings I’ve received.

Despite all that, all but one of the propositions trails in the polls.  And that proposition, 1-F, would “bar legislative and statewide constitutional officers from receiving pay raises when the state is running a budget deficit.”  Despite the contentions of the Governor (who favors the measure) and his publicity team, the people know the remaining measures, if adopted, would not restore responsible budgeting in the Golden State, but would instead cede greater power to legislators and other officials in Sacramento.

Passage of these propositions, particularly Prop 1-A, given its confusing language, would likely mean further tax hikes in the Golden State, but without any significant budgetary restraint.  Should these propositions fail, it would sign that the issues which motivated those of us who participated in the Tea Party protests resonate with voters.  

As such, next Tuesday’s balloting will be the first real electoral test of the Tea Party Movement. This is the first time since people started rallying last February to protest the ever-increasing size of government that voters have a clear choice about bloated government budgets on the ballot.*   

As Hugh puts it:

If the tax hikes are rejected by large margins next week, the country’s political elite ought to study that result closely.  Despite huge spending margins and despite a thin veneer of bipartisanship, the tax hike gang is getting thumped because the electorate is saying –no, shouting– “Enough!” . . . .
 
On social issues, the California [electorate] is evenly split, as the narrow victory for traditional marriage this past fall demonstrated.
 
But there is a sizeable majority in favor of a radical change in the way government operates.  The anger directed at Arnold and his tax-raising, free-spending pals is fueled by the genuine hardships brought about by the panic in the fall and the drop in home prices.  Every business and almost all families have had to make painful cuts and downsize or postpone dreams.
But not the state government.  And that has ignited the voter revolt underway that will culminate next week.

Should these measures fail, as polls now indicate they will, we’ll have tangible evidence of that revolt, evidence that the issues which fueled the Tea Party protests over the past few months resonate with voters in one of the bluest states of the union.

They’ll have no choice but to hear us in Sacramento, but will they hear us in other state capitals and in Washington?

* (more…)

The Integrity of Michael Petrelis & the Tragedy of Gay Iraqis

I should perhaps link blogger/activist Michael Petrelis more often on this blog.  Michael is a lefty whom I first met at Marvin Leibman’s 70th Birthday Party in 1993.  I was surprised then that someone so radical could be so cordial to all the gay Republicans in the room — as well as to some of the straight Republicans. 

Unlike all too many of his ideological confrères, Petrelis is a man of integrity.  He has criticized the gay left, heaping particular scorn on Joe Solmonese and HRC.  In the wake of Prop 8’s passage, he called for Geoff Kors to resign as head of Equality California.  As have we here at GayPatriot.  Also like us and unlike the national gay organizations, he has focused on the plight of gay people in Iran.

Lately, he’s been standing up for gay Iraqis increasingly facing persecution.  

Unlike all too many on his side of the political aisle, Petrelis actually commends conservatives when they do the right thing.  He did just that in a blog post yesterday, singling our for praise a man he described as “a hard-right blowhard self-declared heterosexual,” Big Hollywood’s John T. Simpson:

In a May 8 post, framed by the argument that Ronald Reagan was more of a friend to LGBT citizens than Barack Obama, Simpson segues into a diatribe about the troubles and slayings of LGBT people in Iraq.

As irritating as some of Simpon’s writing and rhetoric may be, he’s saying some important things we ought to listen to. His heated words used to emanate from Queer Nation types, and, more cool comments about this subject might have come from professional homosexual advocates at HRC, NGLTF and GLAAD in the 1980s.

But now the m.o. is to basically keep a shut mouth about the atrocities faced by LGBT people in Iraq. Except for a damn straight GOP loud-mouth, stirring up the pot.

He thanked Simpson for “asking the troubling questions HRC, NGLTF and GLAAD are supremely uninterested in posing.”  Calling what’s happening in Iraq a pogrom, Simpson wonders at the latest media obsession of the gay left:

And somebody wake up Perez Hilton. Bigger problem here than Miss California, methinks. See if she can’t get the Prop 8 crowd as rabid on the horrific slaughter of Iraqi and Iranian gays as they are with the Mormon Church and us!

In his post, provides ample evidence for his claim that the Gipper was better for gays than the incumbent President of the United States.

Kudos to Simpson for pointing out this horror.  And Kudos to Petrelis for praising a conservative for standing up for gays.  If more left-leaning gay bloggers did that, more broad-minded conservatives might speak out on our behalf, knowing they’d be acknowledged for their good words.

Hurling Even More Ad Hominems at Carrie Prejean & Her Allies

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:08 am - May 12, 2009.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Hysteria on the Left

As recently as five years ago, even gay marriage advocates didn’t think it possible to move legislation recognizing same-sex marriages through elected legislatures.  Knowing that polls were against them, their preferred route was through courts.

While they won in the Hawai’i Supreme Court in 1993 and 1997, they lost at the ballot box in the Aloha State in 1998 and would lose all but one referendum and initiative in the following decade  And that one victory, Arizona in 2006, would turn into a defeat two years later when citizens in the Grand Canyon State voted on a proposition would allow the state only to recognize traditional marriage, but not bar same-sex civil unions (as had the earlier initiative).

Given the popularity of initiatives defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and given the fact that until very recently, sexual difference has been central to nearly everyone’s understanding of marriage, you’d think those trying to expand the definition to include same-sex couples might have a little respect for those who favor the longstanding status quo.

And yet, when a politically incorrect person (as opposed to a politician with the appropriate partisan immunity) states her support of that traditional definition, she faces the wrath of the left.  Witness the reaction of the director of the Miss California pageant, Keith Lewis, to Carrie Prejean’s affiliation with Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

(H/t Townhall via reader Peter Hughes.)

Why must he so attack Maggie Gallagher? And why do so many gay lefties use the word “shame” to describe the actions of their ideological adversaries?  His tone was harsh the opposite of the women he’s attacking.  He would have better better served to follow my advice.

Why can’t these people show some class, some grace, in confronting their adversaries?   Why must they adopt so harsh a tone and so vitriolic a vocabulary?

They need to learn from others who have pushed so massive a social change, focusing on the virtues of that change and not the deficiencies of those who defend the status quo.