For about as long as I have been out in gay circles as a conservative, I’ve been attacked by gay leftists for being self-hating.  Or for being the equivalent of a Jewish Nazi.  Or a black Klansman.

I find this insult most amusing because it was once directed at me by a guy who had confessed that he never held a date’s hand in public, something I do regularly I’m dating someone, having just a few weeks ago, walked hand-in-hand with a date from a restaurant on Sunset into the Arclight and to our seats.  Heck, when I lived in Virginia, I even took a date to a Republican Christmas party, introducing him to the then-Republican Lt. Governor of the Commonwealth and his lovely wife (current in-laws to one of W’s daughters) as my boyfriend.

Reading the comments to Nick’s recent posts on Constance McMillen and my post on hospital visitation, many caught in the spam filter due to their vulgar content, I chanced upon many versions of the old slur.  None of the folks leveling the accusation showed any indication they understood what American conservatism was (or what the GOP stood for), most of those also showing no understanding of the point Nick was making.  They didn’t address the point in the post to which they attached their comment.  They just attacked the man who wrote the post and the blog where he posted it  – not to mention the members of the minority community within the gay community to which he belonged.

So, my challenge to those leveling the “self-hating” slur, explain yourself.  Tell us exactly why you call us self-loathing individuals and do so with examples, not expletives.

Okay, quick twofer here (not that you asked for it) on former Arkansas Governor Michael Huckabee’s interview last week.

He talked about more than just Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, of course. In fact, his most consequential comments were in regard to gay adoption. About gays who wanted to adopt children, his comments were, in full (well, as in full as reported online by the newspaper):

I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family…

And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.

Children are not puppies

This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?

Now, I’ve never met Huck, so I’m not going to try to delve too deeply into his motivations. I think he’s likely a very good man who just sees the world (having been a Baptist minister) very differently than I do. That said, I can’t help but read his comments as being suggestive that he believes gay couples who wish to adopt see doing so not as a loving extension of their family, hoping to bring joy and stability to an otherwise orphan, but simply as a novelty or trophy of some sort.

Of course, I imagine if I put it that way to him, he’d have a more gentle way of putting it, but I think that’s generally where he comes down, and I think he’s wrong.

But here’s where the cool twist comes in:
(more…)

You may or may not have heard about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s interview kerfuffle last week with a little-known New Jersey college Leftist website and newspaper. Seems he got all sorts of feathers ruffled on a number of subjects. I’ll blog here in a minute on his words (and their fallout) on gay adoption. But his comments, as reported by the magazine’s website on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are as follows:

“I wouldn’t support a repeal if I were commander-in-chief,” he said. “You don’t see foot soldiers out there demanding it. I’m not sure that’s the most important thing we ought to be doing for the military.”

“[‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’] touches an extraordinarily small group of people,” Huckabee continued. He dismissed calls to amend the policy as “primarily a posturing point for political purposes,” and an attempt to “force something on the military that they themselves haven’t pushed that hard.”

“I think we certainly should be very sensitive to the fact that the purpose of the military is not to see if we can create social experiments,” Huckabee warned.

This caused a minor firestorm, and I wonder, for what?
(more…)

Okay, so let me get this straight:

The ever-so nuanced and most brilliant leader in a generation, President Obama, comes out after the passage of Obamacare and declares that:

I’m not exaggerating…Leaders of the Republican Party … called the passage of [The Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010] “Armageddon.”…

So after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling or some cracks opening up in the earth. Turned out it was a nice day. Birds were chirping. Folks were strolling down the Mall.

(my emphasis)

Now there’s a guy who knows the power of words. Or something. We’re to believe the leader of the Free World and what they’d have us believe is the most eloquent speaker of our generation is so dense he can’t tell a rhetorical flourish when he hears one? He can’t discern methaphorical language? Perhaps it’s a certain font on the TelePrompter, and if he’s not reading it, he doesn’t recognize it.

Anyway, comes now the toadies in the left to once again jump on an actual professional speaker, Rush Limbaugh.

In a mockery of the mockery, Rush has this to say:

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, ‘Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.’ I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied. This volcano in Iceland has grounded more airplanes — airspace has more affected — than even after 9/11 because of this plume…Earth has opened up. I don’t know whether it’s a rebirth or Armageddon. Hopefully it’s a rebirth.

How does the Left play this? deadpan serious and completely without irony.

It’s not the president to them who looks like the jackass by completely missing the point and condescendingly belittling those who’d rather not have Kathleen Sebelius determine thier health care needs. It’s Rush Limbaugh for pointing it out.

Coming next? Criticism for Limbaugh saying “Obama ran around all over the country”. Technically, he flew on Air Force One. Sheesh, doesn’t this guy do any fact-checking before he shoots his mouth off?

Score another one for the death of Poetry.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

UPDATE (from Dan, trying to be funny):  But, doesn’t Obama realize that the bill doesn’t kick in until 2014.  Guess he wanted to give us time to prepare for Armageddon.

Okay, so there’s been a pretty hot (and to a great degree oppositional) response to my post from last night about Constance McMillen, the 18 year-old (whom I mischaracterized as a “girl”, not realizing her age, alas) who had been hornswoggled (I’m running out of synonyms) out of her prom. I’m gratified so many people are so animated by this, and also glad to have sparked a debate in which I actually find myself with few defenders. It’s the sort of battle I prefer best!

In retrospect, I think I may have been too snarky in my original post.* I was flush with the glory of having witnessed my beloved Rockies complete their first ever no-hitter, thanks to the great Ubaldo Jimenez, so I was in no mood for sad-sack stories.

Upon further reflection, I think, while I don’t agree I owe her an apology, at least I do owe her a much more measured and reasoned address. At the risk of flattering myself that she cares what I think in the first place, said clarifiaction follows forthwith, below the jump:
(more…)

Dang.  I’m surprised scientists hadn’t figured this out long before now! (h/t - Lucianne.com)

TEHRAN: A senior Iranian cleric has claimed that dolled-up women incite extramarital sex, causing more earthquakes in Iran, a country that straddles several fault lines, newspapers reported on Saturday.

“Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes,” Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi told worshippers at Tehran Friday prayer.

Maybe Algore & Co should simply cover up all the women around the world to stop Global Warming, too!  It has to be related.

Hmmm, I’d like to know what is going on in Iceland that has caused their big volcanic eruption.  Put on some clothes ladies of Iceland!  You are killing air travel in Europe!!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On Yahoo! (and AOL), caught this headline, President LBJ’s youngest daughter hospitalized. Problem is, President Johnson didn’t have a youngest daughter.  The Texas Democrat only had two children, both girls, so, they’re referencing a non-existent human being.  You don’t use the superlative when there are only two to compare.  Guess no one at the AP had Miss Hickman teach them grammar.

We at GayPatriot wish a speedy recovery to the younger daughter of the 36th president of the United States.

*And maybe not even to their writers.

Okay. So have you heard of this story where the high school girl who wanted to attend the prom with her “lesbian girlfriend” (I use the quotes because, really. Call me an old stick-in-the-mud*, but are high-schoolers self-aware enough to realize they’re lesbians already? And even if so, are we encouraging kids that young to identify themselves sexually? What ever happened to the innocence and beauty of youth? Ugh, but anyway.) was duped into arriving at some sham event while the actual prom was being held somewhere else?

Well, far be it from me to pick on a kid, so let me just get this straight:

Let’s presume the high school has at least a couple hundred kids, and that a bunch of them likely attended this “stealth” prom, right? And somehow, therefore, they were able to keep this girl completely in the dark about the whole thing? Like none of the high-school kids involved spilled the beans? She was totally unable to figure out that the entire school was in on the joke except her (and, apparently a couple “students with learning difficulties”)?

Hm… Seems to me, she’s exactly the sort of inquisitive, self-introspective, get-down-to-the-bottom-of-it, fact-checker and independent thinker that the gay Left is dying to recruit. Surely they’ll be glad to have her.

Additionally, let’s note that her reaction was to broadcast far and wide to anybody willing to listen that she’d been completely punked and embarrassed through her gullibility in hopes of garnering sympathy, rather than reflecting on how she could have been so credulous. This will likely also find her kindred spirits in the movement.

Best of luck with that!

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

*And if you do choose to call me “an old stick-in-the-mud”, you’re clearly more of a fuddy-duddy than I am.

UPDATE (from Dan):  This is an issue which I chose to ignore when I first read about it.  I have a different take on this than does Nick, though we do share some common ground.  I had hoped to take the weekend off from blogging to focus on my friends and my dissertation, but do expect to offer up my thoughts.

That said, while I disagree with Nick’s take, I’m amazed (well, by this time, with the gay left I shouldn’t be) at the extent to which our leftist critics refuse to acknowledge our points and so readily rush to the “self-hatred” slur.  Nick may have an unusual opinion.   He may even be wrong in this case, but he is surely not self-loathing, so, guys keep your comments civil and show some respect for “unfamiliar” opinions.

Remember when, in the run-up to the House vote on the president’s unpopular health care bill, outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Don’t think we’re quite beyond the “fog of controversy”, but we are finding out what’s in the bill and we’re not liking it very much.  John Merline (via Instapundit) as “details about the plan” emerge, they haven’t helped sell the program:

First there was the McClatchy Newspapers report Monday that the new law has spawned “mass confusion” among those who wrongly thought many of the the benefits kicked in immediately. The story noted that one insurance call center has been “inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage.”

Then there was the story in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday pointing out that the law, despite promises to the contrary, “does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases” in insurance premiums. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told the Times that this was a “very big loophole.”

Not just that.  He contrasts Democratic promises that the bill would become more popular if it passed with polling reality:

If this week is any indication, these folks may want to recheck their forecasting abilities.

On Monday, a new Rassmussen survey found that 58 percent say they want the law repealed, up four points from just after it was enacted. And 50 percent strongly favor repeal, according to the survey. A new Associated Press poll finds only 39 percent now approve of the law, down from 42 percent in January, while 50 percent oppose it, up from 42 percent in January.

Merline doesn’t mention a earlier CBS poll which found that only 32% of Americans approve of the plan, with 53% disapproving, 37% disapproving strongly.  That is, according to that one survey, more Americans strongly disapprove of the plan than support it.

Yesterday, I learned that President Obama had ordered “that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners“:

The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.

The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama’s instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation’s facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation,gender identity or disability.

While I’m pleased with the result, I’m concerned about the process.

First, I believe any individual should be able to designate people who can visit him when he’s been hospitalized.  I also believe private hospitals should be free to set their own policies.  And I question whether the president has the authority to do so.  And if he does, wonder what kind of precedent would this set.  Will a future president impose other such mandates on hospitals?

Here, we see a “conflict” between the freedom of hospitals to set their own policies and the ability of their “clients” to choose their visitors.  In most cases, the conflict never materializes.  But, it has; individuals on their death beds have been deprived of the company of their beloved, even after writing “‘advanced health care directive[s]‘” asking for full visitation rights for” said individual.

I don’t like it when the government mandates a private institution to do anything, but I do like what this mandate accomplishes. (more…)

Just returned from running a whole bunch of errands and had one brainstorm and a number of interesting experiences.  It seemed wherever I went I got excellent customer service.  And it also seemed that wherever I drove, I got stuck behind inconsiderate drivers, an inordinate number of whom decided they needed to stop in the middle of the street to deposit passengers.

An interesting contrast.  Great customer service (helping me find exactly what I was looking for in two stores) and lousy drivers (stopping, one cast, so a passenger could exit in the middle of a garage ramp).

So, perhaps it was that contrast which caused my brainstorm.  It fascinates me how the tea party narrative peddled by some of our critics — as well as many in the MSM and in Barney Frank’s caucus — is at odds with the reality of the resurgence of this grassroots movement for limited government.  I say, “resurgence,” because we’re seeing once again the rise of a cadre of conservatives concerned about the increasing size of the state.

The contrast:  we have a grassroots movement committed to what’s best with conservatism, the unifying “Reaganite” ideas, responsible for the rise of the right in the 1980s and 1990s.  And all too many on the left see the worst of conservatism, racism and exclusionary rhetoric, a “right wing” that has been in decline at least since the Reagan ascendancy.

With the Tea Parties, we see a conservatism where ideas not animosity define the right.  But, all too many prejudiced people on the left have only one template to respond to ascendant conservatism.  A template forged in the past and useless as a tool to understand present circumstances.

As readers of this blog know, I wavered on voting “No” on Proposition 8 in the fall of 2008 in large measure because of the raft of nasty e-mails I received from opponents of the ballot measure.  They spent more time attacking the initiative’s proponents (often in vicious terms) than they did promoting the benefits of state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Fortunately, about a week before the election, I saw a happily married lesbian couple who reminded me that the opposition to Prop 8 was not all based on hate.  I voted, “No.”  While I had wanted the haters to lose, I did not believe the traditional definition of marriage should be codified in the state constitution.

Now, if we were to borrow the Barney Frank standard, we would have to define the gay marriage movement by its fringe elements — and  call it a hate movement as it includes many people who promote hatred of social conservatives and even rank-and-file Republicans, not to mention anyone who happens to believe marriage is defined by sexual difference.  (And I don’t recall leaders of the movement “differentiating themselves” from the hateful rhetoric on the movement’s margins.)

We all know that’s not true, not all gay marriage advocates are haters; many gay marriage advocates believe extending the benefits of state recognition of this ancient institution to same-sex couples will be a boon not just for gay people, but also for society at large.  And they make strong arguments in the most civil of language.

Simply put, you can’t define a movement by its fringe elements.

So, if Barney and his ideological confrères wish to tar the GOP and Tea Parties with labels which refer only to the most extreme of our fringe followers, then, fine, he’d better expect any cause he supports to be defined by its extremes.

Those aren’t scare quotes.  Nor is that word from a right-of-center blog.  It’s from the down-the-middle newspaper whose beat is Capitol Hill:

President Barack Obama struck a hyperpartisan note Thursday, telling Democrats that he was “amused” by the Tax Day Tea Party rallies.

Despite the numerous deals the Democrat has made favoring special interests, he’s still assuming the role he played on the campaign trail, the innocent young idealist challenging the powers-that-be in the corrupt imperial capital:

“Every member of Congress is soon going to have to make a decision, but the choice is going to be very simple between special interests and the American people,” Obama said.

If Mr. Obama really wanted to unite the nation, instead of mocking the Tea Parties, he would say he appreciated the energy they bring to the political process.  ”We in the White House may disagree with these folks, but I sure admire their spirit; it shows how committed my fellow citizens are to an energetic public debate.  Makes me proud to be an American.”

And then he could have reminded his fellow Democrats how back in January he had gone into the lion’s den at the House Republicans retreat in Baltimore.  And was a better man for it.

Too bad he can’t bring that same spirit to the current debate.

I had this thought as I was reading about outgoing Nevada Senator Harry Reid’s tumble in the polls.

Last month, Bob Owens reported that the people behind the Tea Party of Nevada had little to do with the grassroots movement sweeping the nation:

Though while tea party protests arose organically and simultaneously over the past year, the founding officers of the Tea Party of Nevada don’t seem to have been active in any local or regional tea party events. In fact, they don’t have any ties to the movement at all. If anything, they seem to be an odd mix of cranks and conspiracy theorists, fronted by a registered Democrat who once represented a reattached John Wayne Bobbit.

Seems these leftists understood the appeal of the tea party phenomenon and thought by getting a Tea Party candidate on the ballot in the Silver State, they could siphon off enough votes that would otherwise go to the Republican candidate and let unpopular incumbent Reid win with a plurality.

The latest polls show that Nevada voters see through this masquerade.

Hastily put together, the 2010 Los Angeles Tax Day Tea Party took place outside Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office at the corner of Santa Monica and Sepulveda in West LA.  And while we rallied in this heart of Waxman-Waters country, hoisting our signs opposing Obama’s big-government agenda and supporting free market reforms and did receive a few extended middle fingers (one through the sun roof of a red Prius), we heard even more supportive honks and witnessed numerous appreciatve thumbs up.

This crowd was most welcoming of the GayPatriot readers who showed up, 8 by my count, 2 straight women, 1 left-leaning lesbian and five gay men.  We made known our sexuality, they made us feel welcome, more welcome indeed than many of us felt when we make known our conservatism (or just plain iconoclasm) at Gay Pride events.

Two of us (two gay men, that is) even got speaking berths. I spoke very briefly, telling the crowd that Barney Frank does not speak for gay people and that many gay Americans favor small government and prefer freedom.  Wearing a “Reagan in ’80″ T-shirt and Reagan ballcap, I called the Gipper the president of my youth whose ideas are the ideas of the future.  I received a resounding round of applause–which didn’t end when I, with a jovial grin on my face, said, “We’re Here, We’re Queer, We want to Repeal Obamacare.”

Keep an eye on this space as I’ll be posting pictures throughout the night as I review those I took earlier today.

(more…)

Just returned from the Los Angeles Teat Party where two of our readers hoisted signs with a slogan that came to me soon after I arrived at the corner of Sepulveda and Santa Monica in West LA.  Report to follow shortly.

As those of us affiliated with the Tea Party take to the streets today to protest Obama’s big government policies, our fellow Americans are registering their disapproval in a different way, by shifting their support to Republican presidential candidates and indicating their opposition to the Democrat’s signature initiative.

According to the Democratic pollster, Public Policy Polling, Sarah Palin is the only one of four potential GOP presidential candidates to run behind the incumbent.  Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney edge Obama, while it’s a dead heat for Newt Gingrich.

Sarah Palin, they find, “now lags Obama only 45-47 after showing deficits of eight or seven points in each of the last three months.”  Wasn’t someone else just two points behind the incumbent?

With the AP poll (one which tends to favor the Democrats) showing, 50 percent of Americans now opposing the Democrats’ health care bill, “the most negative measure all year,” Mary Katharine Ham observes:

Democrats have also lost long-time edges in party approval and trust on the economy. Phil Klein at the American Spectator notes this is the “8th straight national poll showing opposition to ObamaCare at 50% or higher.”

‘Hockey stick’ graph was exaggerated:

The “hockey stick” was used to warn the world of the threat of global warming by numerous individuals and organisations, including Al Gore in his oscar-winning film an Inconvenient Truth and UN body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Sonicfrog who alerted me to this article has more:

The head of the Royal Statistical Society Professor David Hand adds weight to Steve McIntyre’s long held assertion that the infamous Hockey Stick is statistically flawed!

To Democrats who demonize the Tea Parties and dismiss the sincerity of our concerns, I ask that you look to the campaign rhetoric of the 2008 Democratic nominee for president of the United States.  Barack Obama rode to victory that fall in part by echoing ideas that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan once championed as they helped turn the once-fledging conservative movement into a national phenomenon.

Obama said he favored “a net spending cut” (which he contended he had proposed “throughout this campaign“). He pledged to pay for spending increases with even bigger cuts.  Not just that, he said he was going to “put an end to the run-away spending and the record deficits“.

If Obama, with this rhetoric in his campaign, was appealing to the legitimate concerns of the American people, then why wouldn’t Tea Parties, echoing that very rhetoric, also reflect the sincere concerns of American citizens taking the time to take to the streets this Tax Day?