Gay Patriot Header Image

On DADT repeal and the limits of political labels

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  I want to thank Glenn for this unexpected (but not unwelcome) link; it has led to one of the best comment threads we’ve had in some time.  So, thank you Instapundit Readers for contributing to a spirited, thoughtful and civil conversation!

Every once in a while, I read a comment from a civil critic which helps me put my own worldview into perspective.  Responding to Average Gay Joe’s post linking a Podcast Interview of Lt. Daniel Choi, reader CR  did just that:

I have to honestly confess my surprise at how supportive the GP bloggers have been of Choi. I’m particularly surprised given that, as a moderate who is somewhat to the left of GP-residents, I actually don’t have a lot of sympathy for him. 

His surprise made me realize that while I consider myself conservative, on some issues, I’m to the “left” of my party and even to the “left” of some of our critics.  I put the word, left, in quotation marks because sometimes the traditional “direction” of our partisan politics just plain don’t work.  When I have written about Lt. Choi, it just didn’t occur to me that someone might perceive me to be departing from principles I had put forward on this blog.  (To be sure, I was aware that I am at odds with many in my party on the issue).

I’ve always supported a strong military, opposing restrictions, generally coming from well-meaning liberals, which decrease its effectiveness.  And that’s how I see the ban on gays serving openly.  It serves no purpose, save to placate those holding on to long discredited prejudices against gay people.  And it deprives the military of qualified personnel.

Perhaps I’m more sympathetic to Lt. Choi’s outspokenness on this issue because, as a gay conservative, I see the benefits in being open about one’s sexuality.  Coming out in right-of-center confabs has allowed me to see how my conservative confrères react to a gay man in their midst and to show that not all gay people subscribe to the politically correct orthodoxy of the far left.

In a similar manner, I welcome Lt. Choi’s openness.  He provides yet another example of how ably a gay man can serve in our armed forces.

(more…)

A Challenge to Our Critics

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:56 pm - May 17, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Bush-hatred

Since many of our critics delight in demonizing W, often using the comments section of posts where we don’t even highlight the former president’s merits nor acknowledge his failings to remind us how the Republican remains, in their view, a horrible, no good, very bad man, I thought I’d offer them a little challenge so they could put their money where the mouth is and show how truly intolerant, narrow-minded and hateful this man was.

So, here’s the challenge:

Recall how back in March 2003, just before US troops invaded Iraq to liberate that nation from Saddam Hussein, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks told a London audience

Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all.  We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.

A singer for an American country music trio denounces her nation’s president on foreign soil.  And this was only the beginning of the group’s attacks on the then-President.

Given the Dixie Chicks’ attacks on Bush, surely that Republican, being as horrible as you say, must have done something to censure, if not censor, the group.  Please provide evidence of his criticism–or that of any official spokesman–for the White House (at the time).   Please show how he coordinated efforts to denounce the group and/or use their criticism to his political advantage.

For this challenge, I’m not interested in what conservative bloggers, pundits or radio hosts had to say.  The issue here is the supposedly maleficent Bush.  Here’s your chance.   Show how truly bad this man was, in how he reacted to this criticism.

If you come up empty-handed, then you’re free to provide examples of him denouncing or prosecuting others protesting the Iraq War.

LA Tea Party Today May 17 @ 3 PM in Westwood

To show that despite the rhetoric of gay and lesbian legislators, many gay people do not support an ever bigger state government, join me and other Angelenos today Sunday, May 17 at 3 PM at the Federal Building in Westwood 11000 Wilshire Blvd @ Veteran (just e of the 405) for a Tea Party to protest Proposition 1-A.

While the upcoming ballot measures will be the focus of this particularly rally, we’ll be standing strong not just for budgetary restraint at the state level, but also in Washington.

It’s not just “right-wing hardliners” who favor responsible budgeting in Sacramento — and our nation’s capital.

Does Obama Think the Nation Can Get a Book Deal to Cover Its Debts (as he covered his)?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:36 am - May 17, 2009.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Random Thoughts

Via Twitter, Patrick Ruffini reminds us that back in 2000, Barack Obama had had trouble renting a car for the 2000 Democratic National Convention because “his credit card was maxed out.

Looks like he’s basing his budgetary policy on his past personal finances.   Wonder if the country can get a book deal, like he did, to get out of the debt he’s accumulating.

With just a few tens of trillion in sales, that should be able to restore sound budgeting.   But, it would take everyone on the planet buying books at the rate I do to cover generate sales like that.

What Carrie Prejean Didn’t Say

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:16 am - May 17, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Hysteria on the Left

If you just read what those on on the left, particularly the gay left, and in their MSM echo chamber said about Carrie Prejean without hearing the beauty queen’s actual words, you might have thought she had slandered gays, saying that the reason “homosexuals” weren’t worthy of state-sanctioned married was because we were perverts, incapable of relationship.

But, she didn’t smear us. She just articulated how she defined marriage — which is how all societies have defined the institution since time immemorial, by gender difference.* 

Even though she expressed an opinion nearly identical to that of the President of the United States, she became a punching bag for the politically correct, even for one of his closest advisors

She might have merited such mockery had she truly derided gay people, but she didn’t.  It just makes you wonder about the need of so many to vilify the politically incorrect.  Considering why she didn’t say makes wonder me if their issue is not with her, but with themselves.

* (more…)