Gay Patriot Header Image

Ballot Proposal to Overturn Prop 8

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:45 pm - February 4, 2010.
Filed under: California politics,Gay Marriage,Legal Issues

As I’ve reported before (indeed, alluded to the phenomenon in my previous post), in the aftermath of the passage of California’s Prop 8, the individuals and organizations spearheading the various postmortems failed to include gay Republicans or conservatives on their panels.

In fact, during the campaign, they didn’t seem much interested in soliciting our opinions on how to appeal to “movable” conservatives.  At a West Hollywood meeting for gay Republicans, the “No on 8” folks seemed more interested in enlisting us in their campaign than in hearing our ideas on how to improve it.  The were decidedly cool to my suggestion that they ask Ward Connerly, well regarded by California conservatives, to cut a TV commercial against the initiative.

They thought he might offend people on the left–not realizing of course that (most of) the people he might “offend” were already dead-set against 8.

Despite the coolness of the gay organizations to conservative input, I’m going to put forward my ideas on how best to overturn Prop 8.

I agree with those gay organizations who want to wait until 2012 to repeal the measure at the ballot box, but we need the proper ballot language.  With the intention of working toward that goal, I put forward here my draft initiative. While I believe this measure could pass muster with Golden State voters, I want to hear your opinions before I send it out to the various gay organizations.  I particularly want to hear from those with legal backgrounds on how I can improve language:

This replaces Article 1, §7.5* of the California Constitution with the following:

(a) the legislature shall determine the qualifications for recognizing marriages in California;

(b) Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.

(c) The state may not require any such organization, association or society to perform or accommodate a marriage at odds with its religious doctrine, policy, teachings, and beliefs

I adopted subsections (b) and (c) from the New Hampshire law recognizing same-sex marriages.  I debated also including section 2 of the Granite State legislation, but don’t believe the constitution is the appropriate place for such lengthy provisions. (more…)

41! It’s Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) Now

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:30 pm - February 4, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Congress (111th)

Scott Brown Sworn In by Vice President Biden

UPDATE: Here’s video of the junior Senator from Massachusetts taking the oath of office:

NGLTF Keeps Sunshine out of Meeting on Gay Marriage

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:55 pm - February 4, 2010.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Gay Politics

In a post today, the left-of-center (I think he calls himself a socialist) blogger and gay activist Michael Petrelis offers the same sort of criticism of what he deems “Gay, Inc.” (the various establishment gay organizations) that we’ve been offering, taking those organizations to task for their “collective failure to regularly provide open, on-the-record, unfiltered community engagement.

In his post, he excerpts Bay Area Reporter Cynthia Laird’s editorial broadside against Freedom (sic) to Marry’s Evan Wolfson for closing a “marriage institute session” at the Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s annual Creating Change conference to the media:

Anyone who was following the federal Proposition 8 trial via Twitter or on numerous blogs knows full well what the community is up against regarding opposition to marriage equality. And for goodness’ sake, if progressive activists and others can’t articulate their views in a public forum, how are they ever going to accomplish the hard, on-the-ground work of talking to people – in public and private settings?

(Well, technically, it wasn’t closed to the media, just off the record which Laird finds is a distinction without a difference.)

Now, while I quibble with the term, “marriage equality,” I think Ms. Laird is on the money.  We need open discussions, not just among progressive activists, but also with moderates and even sympathetic conservatives.  Petrelis and Laird fault “Gay, Inc” for an absence of, to borrow the leftist blogger’s expression, “unfiltered community engagement,” we fault them for not excluding conservatives, even gay conservatives.

Such open conversations might not only expose “Gay, Inc” to the diversity of views in our community, but also provide insight into the diversity of views in American society at large on same-sex marriage and relationships.

At times, it seems, gay activists are like the movie Avatar, where characters are caricatures, cardboard cutouts, with one side “good” and the other “bad.”  In this case, either you’re for “marriage equality” or you’re a “H8er.”  There is no middle ground. (more…)

A Musical Tribute to Democratic Stubbornness on ObamaCare

And Monty Python shows the consequences of such stubbornness:

Democrats Keep Special Interest Provisions in Health Care Legislation

Even as Senate Democrats will be seating Scott Brown today, they still don’t seem to have learned much from his election.  With the American people upset not just about the content of the various health care bills, but also about the process of cobbling them together, Senate Democrats stand behind the product of their back room machinations.

The health care bill is in trouble, but a series of narrow deals — each designed to win over a wavering senator or key interest group — is alive and well, despite voter anger over the parochial horse-trading that marked the rush toward passage before Christmas.

With the exception of Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback,” which alienated independent voters and came to symbolize an out-of-touch Washington, none of the other narrow provisions that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid inserted into the bill appear to be in any kind of danger as Democrats try to figure out the way ahead.

Not only that, House liberals want to reopen the labor deal struck just days before Democrats lost their 60-vote majority — not to dial it back but to provide more generous protections from the tax on Cadillac insurance plans.

Rick Richman contends that such protections which he calls “the Union-Label Insurance Exemption (U-LIE)

marked the culmination of a process that violated multiple Obama promises about the changes he would bring to Washington: it was not transparent, it was not post-partisan, and it did not eliminate the Blue State/Red State dichotomy. On the contrary, it followed a parade of buy-offs, kickbacks, and exemptions given to Blue State senators to garner their participation in the “historic” process

There is something bizarre in watching the Democrats stand fast to their process and payoffs.  It’s not just that Obama ran against exactly this type of political deal-making in his 2008 campaign, but that the American people have signaled their disgust with this of legislating in polls and at the ballot box in states holding elections in recent days and months.

The American Divorce Agreement.

This email, written by a “Millenial” is making the rounds.  I think you will enjoy it as much as I did.  Thanks to GP Reader Dan in NY for sending this to me!

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement: 

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure  our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns  and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and  Hollywood  .. 

You can make nice with  Iran  and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security. 

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill. 

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. 

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World. 

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag. 

Anyone know a good divorce attorney??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)