After some hilarious posts complaining that Hot Air had suddenly gone All Queer, all the time, I had to draw this up. It took a LOT longer than I had anticipated but I think the results are worth it!
Today, in an editorial in favor of a lawsuit filed against the University of California’s Hastings College of Law, the editors of the Washington Times mention an amicus brief in which I played a small part. You see, “U.C. Hastings denied the status of ‘Registered Student Organization’ (RSO) to . . . the Christian Legal Society (CLS), a conservative religious student group.” Without RSO recognition, the group could not meet in university rooms or “use ordinary campus means of communicating”.
The school refused to register the group
. . . because it requires its voting members and officers to abide by an extensive, faith-based pledge that includes a prohibition on all premarital and extramarital sex. Anybody can come to the group’s meetings and participate, but only those – heterosexual and homosexual alike – who adopt the Statement of Faith can serve as officers and actually lead the Bible study. The university administration decided that a prohibition on sexual activity applicable to all voting members somehow discriminates specifically against homosexuals. (Secondarily, it said CLS discriminates on the basis of religion.)
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), a group of which I am a member, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the CLS, not because we support their policy, but because we support their freedom to set their own standards for membership, much as we would support the freedom of a woman’s group to advocate a feminist ideology or a sport club to promote a softball tournament (limited to qualified athletes).
When Rick Sincere who moderates our listserv asked whether our group should file such a brief, I strongly encouraged the group to do so–to support (and articulate) the ideal of freedom for which our nation’s founders pledges their live, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
In the brief, we stood strongly against forced membership policies and for freedom of association. For just as freedom of association means a Christian group can exclude non-celibate individuals from its leaderships, can a gay group can exclude those biased against people like us from its leadership: (more…)
. . . formerly-conservative gay blogger Andrew Sullivan – never one to miss a chance to hammer the alleged intolerance of American conservatives – finally weighed in. Sullivan was completely silent about Sorba on Friday. And Saturday. But two days later, when he found a new angle, Sullivan couldn’t help himself. The story was too juicy for even him to ignore and he joined the blogosphere left-wing media bandwagon since he knew the way the winds were blowing. Nevertheless, Sullivan labeled Sorba “a glimpse into the future of Republicanism.”
Once again, to Andrew, I ask, “Show me the evidence.” How did he reach this conclusion? Attended any meetings of Republicans lately? Walked any precincts for Republican candidates? Interviewed Republican candidates?
Perhaps, instead of lambasting the GOP for its supposed intolerance of gay people, he should step back and realize his part in getting us to the tipping point. No matter how obsessed he has become today with Sarah Palin’s womb and an imaginary Republican Party, his courage–and his outspokenness–in the 1990s made it easier for guys like Bruce and me to come out in Republican and conservative circles in the mid-1990s and today.
Andrew Sullivan was the first gay openly man to publicly challenge the left-wing gay orthodoxy from a very prominent platform. He set an example; when we debated coming out as gay to our fellow conservatives or as conservative to our fellow gays, we knew we were not alone. As the pioneer (to to speak), Sullivan took a lot of flak reserved for such individuals. By the time we came out, a gay conservative was no long such a novel thing; fewer defenders of the orthodoxy reacted as vehemently as they did when Andrew first challenged their statist shibboleths. (more…)
It seems that a week doesn’t pass without some new revelation of fraud, shoddy scholarship or doctored data at the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They got things wrong about the Himalayan glaciers, the Amazonian rain forest, hurricanes and rising sea levels.
And yet politicians wanted to rely on the panel’s findings to create vast new bureaucracies, controlling our energy consumption and regulating our lives. No wonder one politician (one of those once-derided skeptics) thinks an investigation is warranted:
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.
“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.
That movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Oscar for Best Documentary, might better be called An Overhyped Fraud.
Inhofe wants “the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved”. Those scientists do seem to have done everything in the power to forge a consensus for their conclusions. But, they inconveniently hid their date and conveniently suppressed peer-reviewed work that conflicted with their conclusions. As one blogger put it, “When you so obviously stack the deck in your favor, it is no wonder you get a consensus.”
I am thrilled to announce that as of today, I’m a new contributor at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism site. My first post summarizes the “homocon tipping point” that occurred this past weekend at the CPAC conference.
Here’s a taste:
The reaction from the mainstream media and Gay Left blog community was swift and predictable: CPAC boos the gays. Most delivered their verdicts without being at the conference itself, talking to anyone there or even watching the earlier video where Alexander McCobin was applauded. The idea that the conservative movement would actually rally behind GOProud at the CPAC conference was completely unimaginable to those on the Left as news of the event spread.
But there’s a LOT more. I encourage you to read the whole thing.
And, while I’m at it, let me suck up a bit to my new partner — the conservative media bulldog Andrew Breitbart.
Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.com, BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, BigHollywood.com is big. He is bigger than all his entities combined, he is big energy, big bravery, big wallet, and big-hearted to take on seemingly endless government corruption in the Obama administration. He fills any room with his aura and his voice. Everyone knows when Breitbart is in the house.
On Saturday at CPAC, Jimmy LaSalvia (Executive Director of GOProud), was a featured speaker on a panel regarding grassroots organizing in the Internet age. Jimmy’s presentation is also a great story about how GOProud was formed, using social networking tools, and one of the first legislative battles the group faced last year.
The video is in three parts below.
INTRUDER BY PHONE: “Hi, first I want to thank you for your previous contributions to Senator John McCain and for being such a strong supporter.”
ME: HAHAHAHA. Um, what? I am NOT a supporter.
IBP: Oh, I sense frustrations, may I ask why you…
ME: IMMIGRATION! DUH!
IBP: Well, you will be happy to know that Senator McCain is working to…
ME: DON’T CALL ME AGAIN.