Blogcasting from the worldwide headquarters of the not-so-vast gay right wing conspiracy.
Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.
GayPatriot is the internet home for American gay conservatives and hailed as "the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet."
"Terrific blog" -- Michael Barone, principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
FOLLOW GAY PATRIOT ON TWITTER!
Bruce Carroll Jr.(GayPatriot)
- Email: bruce -at- gaypatriot.org
B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest)
- Email: GayPatriotWest -at- aol.com
Sarjex Muller
- Email: Sarjex -at- gmail.com
Nick (ColoradoPatriot)
- Email: ColoradoPatriot -at- gmail.com
John (Average Gay Joe)
- Email: avgayjoe -at- yahoo.com
Vera Charles
In a post this morning, Jim Geraghty points out that Sarah Palin’s approval rating among independents is 41 while that of the president is 43 and the vice president 42.
And she doesn’t have the advantage of a fawning press corps.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Other polling news, via HotAir:
- Independents flee the Democrats; Dems notice but don’t get it:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/18/dems-finally-notice-flight-of-independents/
- ObamapelosiCare is now down 51-35 among registered voters (not just likely voters):
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/19/quinnipiac-obamacare-opposed-51-35/
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - November 19, 2009
GEe, isnt that funny. For Palin and Biden, the results from Gallup. For Obama, the results from Quinnipiac.
That doesnt sound kosher, does it?
You think that Geraghty had a disinclination to report the Gallup favorable number for Obama – 55?
Comment by Tano — November 19, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - November 19, 2009
Maybe I should make the point more explicit.
What Geraghty has done is a fraud. And it seems quite intentional, given that the numbers for Obama are on the very same page at Gallup as the numbers for Biden.
Comment by Tano — November 19, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - November 19, 2009
but you can’t ignore a good bitchy cat fight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TZN38s2Cw
sorry about the lack of the universal translator. . .but you get the drift.
Comment by rusty — November 19, 2009 @ 3:19 pm - November 19, 2009
but this is for you ILC my little Crystal Carrington. . . since Alexis (AE)
is poking at you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAOkwjQdm6Q
Comment by rusty — November 19, 2009 @ 3:23 pm - November 19, 2009
And again Tano with spurious accusations.
I’m sorry Tano but your peers have reviewed your writings and found it w/o merit.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 19, 2009 @ 3:37 pm - November 19, 2009
rusty – Interesting indeed. Sanders being a Republican as well as a police guy.
Just to reiterate my stance – “Separate but equal” is something I *can* support, in the instance of gay marriage. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, marriage – It’s all progress. I never expected gays to get this far; I thought we would still be battling sodomy laws, at this point. Democracy is the right way to do things, it takes time and I am willing to accept election defeats gracefully.
Now, what you and I know is, even a mellow stance like that about gay marriage is, sadly, much more than some on this blog can tolerate, or even refer to in a truthful way.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - November 19, 2009
I agree with ILC I can support Civil Unionsand domestic partnerships.
Comment by Silverwolf — November 19, 2009 @ 4:04 pm - November 19, 2009
To be clear, I should have written that my mellow stance is “much more than one individual on this blog can tolerate…”
- Some on this blog are civil and sensible gay marriage opponents and I respect them.
- Others are supporters.
- Others don’t care.
If I left any impression of slagging the blog, or slagging its ‘other’ gay marriage opponents, I apologize.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - November 19, 2009
GP Ed. Note: This comment has been deleted due to violation of this website’s community terms of conduct.
Comment by American Elephant: Providing the Sources that ILC Can't — November 19, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - November 19, 2009
And no wonder you have to run crying to Dan behind the scenes to get him to censor me in your favor.
What a repugnant liar you are.
Comment by American Elephant: Providing the Sources that ILC Can't — November 19, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - November 19, 2009
And Rusty,
I am more than happy to be compared to Joan Collins since she is a conservative patriot standing up against the scourge of political correctness that is destroying her once great country,
while Linda Evans is a Yanni-loving, “Ramtha”-channeling liberal basketcase.
Seems rather fitting actually!
Comment by American Elephant: Providing the Sources that ILC Can't — November 19, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - November 19, 2009
Joan is fabulous darling and so is her character Alexis. . .just seems like a catfight is more fun
as for Joan. . .Collins is also a devout monarchist, remaining loyal to the British Royal Family. and the poor dear has a lovely idea of marriage. . .5 marriages. You go AE (ALEXIS MY DEAR)
Comment by rusty — November 19, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - November 19, 2009
a tad bit more trivia:
DYNASTY co-stars JOAN COLLINS and LINDA EVANS were stunned by the fall out from the latter’s famous kiss scene with AIDS sufferer ROCK HUDSON – because so many people thought she was contagious. Evans and Hudson locked lips in a famous Dynasty episode in 1982, when AIDS didn’t even have a name, and cast and crew shunned the actress for getting intimate with the tragic star. She recalls, “Everyone was completely panicked… Some of the people on the set wouldn’t come near me because they had children and they didn’t want to potentially hurt their children; they didn’t know if it would be a problem or not. “I understand people go through fear but I knew Rock; I had worked with Rock… and I had done a scene with Rock where he was quite passionate with me. “When he kissed me that way (in Dynasty) we had to reshoot it because it wasn’t passionate enough. When I found out he was sick I understood why he shot it that way – to protect me.” Collins reveals behind the scenes, ignorant make-up crew and hairdressers were frantically trying to avoid Hudson and everything he touched. She recalls, “People were so ignorant that my hairdresser said to me in the dressing room, ‘Don’t sit there, he’s been sitting there,’ and then, ‘Don’t touch that comb, we’re going to throw it away.’ It was an atmosphere of total fear.”
20 September 2006
Comment by rusty — November 19, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - November 19, 2009
oopsy http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/collins-and-evans-recall-dynasty-kiss-shocker_1008784
but “It was an atmosphere of total fear.”
At 46 and having been ‘out’ for the last 25 years ILC, I too am amazed that GLBT folk are talking about Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions/Gay Adoptions/Hate Crimes/Marriage. . .etc etc etc.
Comment by rusty — November 19, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - November 19, 2009
And, there it is. The Rage begins. LOL
Correct. You finally, after all this time, acknowledge that. I’ve been saying it on this blog for years, and in all that time, AE, this is the FIRST where you have not tried to lie to people outright about my position, claiming that I was somehow against deciding gay marriage / civil unions democratically. Congratulations. You’ve made a bit of progress in your integrity, honesty and/or reading comprehension.
Fixed it.
No. State-licensed marriage is a right, AE, for **neithe** gay nor straight couples. That is my position. State-licensed marriage is a public-policy issue. That – i.e., the fact that it is a public policy matter and emphatically NOT a right – is the reason WHY the People get to vote on State-licensed marriage, democratically. I have maintained that consistently.
From that position, the rest follows. As a polity, we bother to have State-licensed marriage for straight couples for the simple and powerful reason that it is very good public policy. And as a polity, we set qualifications that serve to exclude bigamists, pedophiles, incest couples, etc. for the simple and powerful reason that excluding them is very good public policy. Precisely **because** a license from the State for driving, professional practice, marriage or anything is a privilege and not a right, the People get to set whatever qualifications for the license that they want to. Hey, they even get to exclude gays, if they want to. That is, and for a long time now has been, my position. I simply go on to state my opinion that including gays would be rather better policy than not.
Where have I ever done that? Ever. Name one single occasion, AE. You can’t – not with honesty or integrity or reading comprehension, I mean. What I have done, is the following. I have consistently maintained that State-licensed marriage serves two – not one, but TWO – essential purposes that benefit society:
1) It ties couples with kids or who are going to have kids, in legal knots for the good of the kids. AND,
2) It ties couples (regardless of kids) in legal knots for the good of each other.
BOTH of which purposes benefit society. It is a simple and blatant fact of reality that either one, or both, may apply in any given couple’s State-licensed marriage.
Our argument then usually proceeds as follows:
- you then deny the second purpose.
- As evidence for the second purpose, I again point out the blatant and self-evident fact – the Elephant in the room, if you will – that the law marries thousands of couples having only the second purpose every year; couples who are blatantly incapable of producing children (e.g., the woman is 80), not to mention couples who are capable of children but who have every intention of murdering their unborn children, if/when they have any.
- unable to face that reality, you then fly into a fit of rage, screeching names and telling lies about me and my views that are silly and easily disproven.
- It closes with me laughing and underlining your silliness, and you continuing to screech your name-calling rage and hate.
Another claim that I have never made.
Find the quotation if you think you can, AE. You won’t be able to. What you will find, is words of mine that you have willfully misinterpreted as that. Here is a typical example of how I have stating the “second purpose”, all this time:
Unable to handle that reality, you warp and misrepresent it as “your ridiculous claim that we SUBSIDIZE married couples because it saves us money”. But such misrepresentations are your problem, AE, not mine. Not. My. Problem.
The only one who has ever lied in our ‘discussions’, AE, is you. (See above.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2009 @ 11:40 pm - November 19, 2009
P.S. To expand on the mutual-welfare angle: There are many ways in which couples take care of each other, other than money. All successful married couples will tell you that they make each other better people. And that society is better off for it. Society is more ordered, and has a much better average quality of person in it, because of State-licensed marriage. And yes, *in addition* to that, the couple are there to call 911 or whatever if one of them has a heart attack; that would be *one additional* aspect of the “mutual welfare” aspect of State-licensed marriage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2009 @ 11:47 pm - November 19, 2009
Honestly – why are Palin’s poll numbers of any consequence?
She is a private citizen. As Rush might say, she can’t raise your taxes, send you to war, burden future generations with lethal debt loads, or decide whether or not you can get medical treatment.
On the other hand, the three-headed hydra (Barry, Harry, and Nancy) are busily working to raise our taxes, drown the world with our worthless debt, dithering in a war (just end the GD thing already), and put themselves in charge of our healthcare.
Personally, I’ve had it with the “best and brightest” that have been running this country. Bush-41 and Bush-43: Yale, Obama: Harvard, Bill Clinton: Yale. And look at what we got.
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 19, 2009 @ 11:49 pm - November 19, 2009
(continued) But raising the moral qualities, health qualities, generosity or spiritual qualities, success qualities, civic qualities, on and on and on and on, of the individuals, are all parts of the massive kaleidoscope of “mutual welfare” benefits realized by the individuals and by society in State-licensed marriage, that I have in mind with my “second purpose” above.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2009 @ 11:50 pm - November 19, 2009
Something I said in June 2009:
Still no sign of AE’s straw man, “your ridiculous claim that we SUBSIDIZE married couples because it saves us money”. No sign at all.
Back in June, of course, AE you were already trying to push your cheap, contemptible straw men on me. YOU said,
Repeat: NOT my view. Something YOU said. I responded *against* your straw man about State-licensed marriage somehow being about “subsidizing these couples”, later in the thread.
One thing is clear: AE, your problems with reading comprehension, truth and accuracy have been long and consistent.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2009 @ 12:30 am - November 20, 2009
“Hey, they even get to exclude gays, if they want to”
ILC,
Do you think that states would have the power to deny a driver’s license to gays? Or a medical license?
Comment by Tano — November 20, 2009 @ 12:35 am - November 20, 2009
Tano, obviously Equal Protection considerations do set some limits on what licensing qualifications can be. For example, States cannot set qualifications based on race, in issuing marriage licenses. The 14th Amendment deals with race explicitly and severely as an Equal Protection matter, and the Loving decision correctly applied it to State marriage licensing. Note even there, however, that Loving spoke of obtaining a State marriage license as a fundamental “freedom”, not as a fundamental right.
Nonetheless, States (or the People) get to set qualifications which are going to be relevant for the type of license. Where the purpose of State license X is to acknowledge a sexual relationship (whether current or prospective) and incorporate that relationship in law as a binding family relationship, qualifications touching upon sexuality, fertility and the like are going to be relevant and permissible. It’s just a question of picking good ones vs. stupid ones. I say the qualification excluding gay couples is a stupid one. People can then vote as they like, whether in agreement with me or in disagreement.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2009 @ 12:57 am - November 20, 2009
Correction – the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention race; it’s just that race is a big part of what it was created to deal with, and where it has been most heavily applied. I regret the error.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2009 @ 1:04 am - November 20, 2009
Also, my answer was a bit indirect. Let me nail it.
No, that would be an unconstitutional violation of EP because sexuality has no relevance as a possible qualification or disqualification for a driver’s license. Whereas sexuality has relevance as a possible qualification or disqualification for State marriage licensing; thus, excluding gays is not an unconstitutional violation of EP, it is merely bad policy (in my view).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2009 @ 1:10 am - November 20, 2009
GP ED NOTE: This comment was deleted due to violating the community terms of conduct.
Comment by American Elephant — November 20, 2009 @ 3:10 am - November 20, 2009
GP ED NOTE: This comment was deleted due to violating the community terms of conduct.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2009 @ 8:18 am - November 20, 2009
Emphasis added. Answer: They clearly aren’t. I have never said they are!
Or else, AE, find the “source” (haha) where you think I have. Since, you know, in that special world and language you occupy by yourself with the the statues and all, you are specially good at that.
For the sane people: What I have said is that gay and lesbian couples are *reproductively equivalent* to *infertile* straight couples.
Emphasis added for AE. Reading comprehension, AE. Reading comprehension. Oh, and a greater effort at truthfulness would suit you.
What on Earth is that even saying? AE, your rage has taken you to a new low of frothing, spittle-flecked incoherence. Talk to the “statues” again, see if their voices can help you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2009 @ 8:45 am - November 20, 2009
so about that little ruling in CA:
A federal judge in California has awarded a couple benefits compensation previously denied because the couple is gay, the Los Angeles Times reported.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s opinion called the denial of benefits a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Public defender Brad Levenson was denied spousal benefits for his husband, Tony Sears. The couple married on July 12, 2008 in California before voters approved a gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, in November.
“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt said.
Comment by rusty — November 20, 2009 @ 8:47 am - November 20, 2009
oopsy http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4889&MediaType=1&Category=26
Comment by rusty — November 20, 2009 @ 8:48 am - November 20, 2009
AE & ILC – Take it offline, PLEASE.
Tano – Stop with the personal attacks NOW or you are no longer welcome.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 20, 2009 @ 10:39 am - November 20, 2009
Bruce,
What personal attacks? I just pointed out how someone presented phony data in a publication, and called it fraudulent. What is wrong with that? It was one of the mildest things said around here.
I would very gladly comply with some rule of yours that outlawed personal attacks. Are you going to ban all of your regular commenters too, who attack relentlessly, and often in a truly disgusting manner not only every n0n-conservative figure in the world, but fellow guests of this blog, and even each other.
Comment by Tano — November 20, 2009 @ 12:04 pm - November 20, 2009
rusty.
It’s a bad ruling.
“The denial of federal benefits to … cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval …”
Fill in the blanks. With that language the government couldn’t regulate anything.
“The denial of federal benefits to terrorists cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of blowing people up.”
“The denial of federal benefits to illegal aliens cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of breaking the law”
“The denial of federal benefits to heterosexual spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of breeders.”
It’s a crappy decision.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 20, 2009 @ 12:17 pm - November 20, 2009
thanks LW oh here is more on Fred:
FindFred.com – The new, global social revolution for guys! via Facebook
Comment by rusty — November 20, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - November 20, 2009
rusty, thanks for the laugh. I’d never heard of that site, but it is funny when you think of my ‘Fred’
Comment by The_Livewire — November 20, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - November 20, 2009
GP Ed. Note: This comment has been deleted due to violation of this website’s community terms of conduct.
Comment by American Elephant — November 21, 2009 @ 12:48 am - November 21, 2009
Nurse Ratched. . .paging Nurse Ratched
American Elephant: Providing the Sources that ILC Can’t
when did you start posting this as your tag AE and think about whose dragging the shit into the commentary.
Comment by rusty — November 21, 2009 @ 1:39 am - November 21, 2009
AmericanElephant, you should have followed your own suggestion in post 36. By the way, believing that persons or couples should be treated equally does not mean persons or couples are exactly the same. Have a good day.
Comment by Pat — November 21, 2009 @ 9:27 am - November 21, 2009
Purely for the record: The referent of this sentence:
… would be the *institution* of State-licensed unions among gays and/or straights. The sentence says that I’m OK with gays ending up with civil unions, i.e., a legal *institution* that is separate but roughly equal in intent and effect.
While the referent of this sentence, is gays as couples, or as people:Thanks to all of you who had the modicum of goodwill needed to understood that. Also for the record, it should go without saying that I am not a segregationist (whether on sexual issues or other issues) nor the other things accused of me. The accusation that I don’t admit mistakes is interesting in light of comment #23, where I apologize for a mistake in this very thread.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2009 @ 10:38 am - November 21, 2009
Yikes – I meant that the reference of this sentence is gays as a couple, or as people:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2009 @ 10:40 am - November 21, 2009
Oh, after ignoring about 13 of ILC’s regular {“Well, SOME PEOPLE ON THIS SITE) lies about me.
That’s when Rusty. And i finally decided Im sick of letting the filthy liar have the last word.
Comment by American Elephant — November 21, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - November 21, 2009
GP Ed. Note: This comment has been deleted due to violation of this website’s community terms of conduct.
Comment by American Elephant — November 21, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - November 21, 2009
Yes, Pat,
you’re talking to the wrong person, I understand that, that has been consistent with my position from the beginning. But when you argue that people or couples ARE the same in all meaningful ways, the constitution REQUIRES that you treat them equally.
ILC has been trying to have it both ways, demanding that gay couples ARE EXACTLY equal in ALL meaningful ways to straight couples that cant or dont have children. While at the same time arguing that the they aren’t entitled to equal treatment under the law.
He has lied about the definitions “reproduce”, “nuclear family” and even accused 12 online dictionaries of being wrong in order to make this argument. He has lied about how the institution is defined and WHO defines it. He has STILL been unable to provide sources of ANY state defining it as he does, lying about that too,. He has lied ENDLESSLY about what Ive said and constantly tried to change his argument claiming it was what he said all along.
And when I finally shoved it down his throat that if gay couples ARE equal to some straight married couples in all meaningful ways, that the Constitution would require them to be treated equally, HE LIED AGAIN and said he never said they were “exactly equal”
Which has been MY point that he has been denying FROM DAY ONE.
SO, now we come down to the point where ILC must define how exactly gay couples are materially, legally, significantly inferior to those same straight couples that it is lawful for the state to NOT treat their relationships equally under the law?
Which he CANT DO, because that would force him to concede that Ive been right ALL ALONG.
So once again he is desperately trying to figure out ways to SPIN his argument so that he can CLAIM that hes been saying something different all along, but he cant.
Wont stop him from lying though! Nothing ever does!
Comment by American Elephant — November 21, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - November 21, 2009
you’re talking to the wrong person, I understand that, that has been consistent with my position from the beginning. But when you argue that people or couples ARE the same in all meaningful ways, the constitution REQUIRES that you treat them equally.
AmericanElephant, you’re saying two different things now. Exactly equal vs. the same in all meaningful ways. I’m not a constitutional expert, but I don’t know that the constitution requires all to be treated equally. It certainly didn’t for almost 200 years for Black persons. Even when an amendment specifically required it, it still took almost 100 years to have laws enforce it.
Speaking for myself now, I personally believe that committed gay couples who do not have children are the same in all meaningful ways to a committed straight couple who do not have children. You don’t agree with that. And at this point the majority either also doesn’t agree with me, or does but still doesn’t want marriage for same sex couples.
So even if the Constitution “required” there to be same sex marriage, that’s a far cry from reality that it is going to happen. Thus, the only alternative is to have this go through the usual legislative and referendum processes. And yes, like it or not, the courts also get involved, whether they are supposed to or not.
I also disagree with you about ILC’s argument. His argument has been fairly consistent. We’re on a blog where all our arguments are written. Sometimes nuances get lost, and if we write something that’s not quite the way we meant to write it, it can easily be misinterpreted. Heck, I’ve seen plenty of times where my argument is completely misinterpreted (maybe even intentionally in an attempt to make cheap points). So even when one’s writing is pristine, an argument can be misinterpreted, even innocently. So I’ll assume to avoid any more flame wars that that was the case here.
Comment by Pat — November 22, 2009 @ 7:56 am - November 22, 2009
Pat, thanks for the support. Needless to say, AE’s misinterpretations of me have been aggressive and there is nothing new, significant or even truthful about his counter-claims in this thread. I am consulting with Bruce before I make any longer response.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2009 @ 8:35 am - November 22, 2009
(“aggressive” misinterpretations meaning willful, not innocent; and, in a real sense, not my problem – except for the problem that there is this individual out there continually lying about me)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2009 @ 9:56 am - November 22, 2009