Gay Patriot Header Image

Hating & Blacklisting Supporters of Traditional Marriage

Perhaps the most annoying (and counterproductive) thing about the most active advocates of state recognition of same-sex marriage is their tendency to paint all those who support the traditional definition of marriage with a broad brush.  They define them as “haters,” with Cindy McCain apparently joining their ranks by posing for a picture with duct tape on her mouth and a “No H8” tattoo on her cheek (or agreeing to have said accessories photoshopped in).


As if someone somewhere is preventing her from speaking out on gay marriage. Yet, this very image is the inversion of reality. If someone speaks out in favor of gay marriage, they instantly earn the accolades of the PC powers that be and are often heralded for their courage. But, if they dare challenge the politically correct view on this controversial topic, they are frequently branded as haters and their livelihoods threatened.

Larry O’Connor reminds us of “Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of Sacramento Music Theatre [who] was forced to resign after the public revelation that he donated $1,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign.”  It is the gay marriage activists who wish to silence those opposed to state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Shouldn’t they want to hear their arguments so they can better challenge them in the court of public opinion?  But instead, they seek to ostracize them, punishing them for their point of view.  Via Glenn, we learn further details of this “new blacklist,” no, not against advocates of same-ex marriage, but against those of traditional marriage:

A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland’s historic Paramount Theatre.

Now, if this Mormon used his position on said board to advocate traditional marriage, the City Elders of Oakland would have a point, but if he happens to hold the view he does, while attending, without prejudice, to his duties on the board, then there is no problem.  Instead of punishing such an individual for his position on gay marriage, they should learn to counter, in a civil manner, his argument. (more…)

Harold Ford, Jr. Can’t Pass Muster with Gay PC Thought Police

Back in the mid-1990s when I worked on Capitol Hill, I found that certain Congressman stood out because of the manner in which they treated staffers.  Some seemed to turn away if it looked like you were about to talk to them.  Others would respond courteously to your greetings, but in a regal manner, as if that were the response owed to polite peons.

And then, there were the just plain decent ones.  And they didn’t divide themselves along partisan lines.  Phil Crane may have been haughty (would later lose his seat), but Eleanor Holmes Norton was amicable, often chatting with staffers in the elevator and thanking those who waited for her to exit before doing so themselves.

Two members, however, stood out for their decency, then-Reps. Joe Scarborough (now of MSNBC) and Harold Ford, Jr., the former a Republican, the latter a Democrat.  I believe their offices were right next to each other.  Each had a great smile and a pleasant manner.  Perhaps, it’s because of Ford’s friendly manner that I’ve been cheering him on as he contemplates challenging New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in their state’s Democratic primary.

But, alas, as I learned in a post linked by Glenn Reynolds, that good man has attracted the animus of New York’s “Angry Gays.”  And we know they’re not easily placated.  “Their beef seems to knows no bounds: Ford’s dismal anti-gay voting record back in Tennessee.”  Yet, the post provides no details of said voting record.  Still, gay activists in the Empire State have been quick to condemn this young man, with their “rapid-fire” response to his talk of challenging Gilibrand confirming “the potency of their furor — and newfound commitment to taking on politicians deemed enemies of the gay state.”

Enemies of the gay state?  Huh?  Sounds like the attitude of defenders of Communist regimes.

Guess it’s not enough for the gay thought police if someone changes his mind on gay marriage (as Ford has done, now supporting it).  There is no placating some gay activists who demand complete subservience to a set ideology, including adherence to the social justice code of the “progressive” elites.

A delightful irony of the gay “boy” culture

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:00 pm - January 23, 2010.
Filed under: Dating,Gay Culture,LA Stories

So, an acquaintance of mine, young guy who is attracted to older guys, attracts the (online) attention of a guy at the upper end of his desired demographic.  Said older man, born about the time of Dewey’s loss to Truman, uses the term “boy” to describe himself in his online moniker.  And no, it’s not some variant of “Boyhunter” or “Boylover.”

Even said acquaintance, born about the time of Reagan’s victory, doesn’t describe himself as “boy,” yet admits being attracted to “daddies.”

So, what does it say about a 60-year-old man interested in 20-something men who calls himself “boy”?  (I understand my acquaintance declined the invitation to get acquainted.)

So, their gloom & doom is based on a report riddled with errors?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:09 am - January 23, 2010.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report:

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

Oh, and, this fellow Pachauri, he’s not a climate scientist. He got is Ph.D. in economics.

Let’s not forget, the IPCC’s 2007 report “which won it the Nobel Peace Prize” based its forecast on the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers “not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.”   Wow, just wow.  Media interview as scientific evidence.  Seems sometimes the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) consensus is based on a series of media interviews (and slide shows).

The more people probe this and other reports alleging AGW, the more errors we’ll find that challenge their premise.

And take note of Pachauri’s reaction, it’s all about him and not letting the climate skeptics win:  ““I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them”.  Instead he calls it a “collective failure” (like socialism?).   So, it’s all about “not obliging” the climate skeptics where scientific accuracy takes a back seat, at least to Dr. (of economics) Pachauri.

The Left-Wing View of Popular Will

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:18 am - January 23, 2010.
Filed under: Arrogance of the Liberal Elites

With some Democrats and left-wing bloggers still pushing Obama’s health care overhaul, we gain a better understanding of their view of the popular will:  they believe it’s what the people want because they know just exactly what it is the people want.  Even more so than do the people themselves.