Gay Patriot Header Image

BREAKING: Ken Mehlman comes out (bumped)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:55 pm - August 25, 2010.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

More as it develops.

Let’s see, he’s Jewish, he’s a Republican, he’s good-looking in a nerdy kind of way.  So, my only question is, is he single?

UPDATE:  I’ve now begun to review the story surrounding his coming out.  My greatest fear for Mehlman is that he has to go through the often tortuous process of coming out in public.  All too many on the left, the gay left most of all, will give him no quarter.  They’ll lambaste him as a self-hating hypocrite, may even try to follow him around, possibly even accosting him in public.  They will not give him the space to deal with this in private and in his own way.

That said, I bet there will be a handful of voices on the left, asking their ideological confrères to leave him alone, knowing how trying the coming out process can be.  There are decent gay lefties out there and some may let their fellow feeling trump their ideological conviction.  While I hope that they dominate the debate, I doubt that they will.

One reason I oppose “outing” is that I know from experience — and not just my own — that when coming to terms with this part of ourselves, we need to do it in at our pace and in private.

UP-UPDATE:  And as he will be tarred as a self-hater, all too many will ignore what he did try to do when in the Bush Administration and at the RNC:

Privately, in off-the-record conversations with this reporter over the years, Mehlman voiced support for civil unions and told of how, in private discussions with senior Republican officials, he beat back efforts to attack same-sex marriage. He insisted, too, that President Bush “was no homophobe.” He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called “the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now.”

He’s spot on there.  In leading the War on Terror, W was taking the fight to the real enemies of gay people, those who threaten the lives of our fellows rather than those who attempt to block the state from granting us certain privileges.

NB:  Apologies for the somewhat stilted language of this post; I wrote in his haste.  I have gone through to clean it up a bit and remove a few extra words while adding in missing ones.  Decided, however, not to change it further — and rewrite sentences that are little clunky and where I could have expressed myself a bit better.

Share

63 Comments

  1. Please get the word out from Gay Patriots and
    GOProud that we
    welcome Ken and are thinking about him at this moment when he needs our support!!

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 25, 2010 @ 7:34 pm - August 25, 2010

  2. I thought he was out years ago….

    It would appear the gay rights, DADT and SSM are approaching a NATIONAL CRITICAL-MASS.

    Also see the sympathetic front page article in the NYT contrasting West Point’s gay cadets forced into the military closet and it’s own Honor Code.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 25, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - August 25, 2010

  3. Has a new big $$ loft in NY, throwing big party 4 Olson/Boies and probably has a sidekick

    Comment by rusty — August 25, 2010 @ 8:02 pm - August 25, 2010

  4. Dan… I just sent you an e-mail suggesting you should give him a call!!!!!! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 25, 2010 @ 8:02 pm - August 25, 2010

  5. I’m a gay lefty and I’ve been checking out the blog recently. I am a little fascinated frankly, by groups like GOProud and by the Ken Mehlman situation. I can understand gay conservatives who are Republicans because they care about other issues before gay rights. It’s a self-interest thing and I get it. You make $450K a year and you want lower taxes. OK, fair enough. But what I am fascinated by are gays who support Republicans and think that progress will be made on gay issues if more Republicans are elected. I’m curious what you think about the House vote to repeal DADT. 5 Republicans voted for it vs. 173 who voted to keep the ban in place. A mere 6 Republican Senators voted against amending the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. 6!!! 44 Democrats voted against. Do those numbers mean anything to you?

    I’ll anticipate one response to these questions, which is the “Clinton signed DOMA and enacted DADT.” That’s fair criticism. And yet, all opposition to DOMA came from…? Democratic US Senators, including Senators that this site routinely opposes, like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry. Would Carly Fiorina have voted “NO” on DOMA? Let’s get away from federal issues and look at the states. Would Dino Rossi have signed Washington’s anti-discrimination law and signed WA’s domestic partnership bills, as Gov. Gregoire did? Here’s your answer: “In 2001 the Public Employees Benefits Board declared that the same-sex partners of state employees would be eligible for coverage under the state health care plan. Rossi co-sponsored a bill that would have stripped same-sex partners of the right to be covered as any heterosexual spouse of a state employee would. That bill was stranded in committee and died.” Source: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/06/dino_rossi_voted_to_ban_gay_ma.php

    In any event, I hope that these questions have been posed respectfully enough for bloggers’ taste. I suppose my point, as it applies to Mehlman or gay conservatism in general is “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”

    Comment by Mike — August 25, 2010 @ 9:28 pm - August 25, 2010

  6. From Marc Ambinder’s Atlantic column

    Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus. He was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief strategic adviser, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans. Mehlman acknowledges that if he had publicly declared his sexuality sooner, he might have played a role in keeping the party from pushing an anti-gay agenda.

    Comment by rusty — August 25, 2010 @ 9:44 pm - August 25, 2010

  7. rusty, saw that, note he said acknowledged. Seems it was his response to a question not an actual statement he made.

    Still, not aware of any place the party actually pushed an “anti-gay” agenda and want to hear Mehlman’s actual words rather than read them filtered through a left-of-center blogger.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 25, 2010 @ 9:47 pm - August 25, 2010

  8. Congratulations Ken.

    Now you can leave the GOP and join the party of equal rights: the Democrats.

    Comment by steve — August 25, 2010 @ 10:07 pm - August 25, 2010

  9. Still think the bigger Republican surprise is Miller’s performance in Alaska primary…

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — August 25, 2010 @ 10:15 pm - August 25, 2010

  10. What makes this case somewhat interesting is not that he is gay, but that he was a member of a party that condoned, and even promoted, hatred of gays, but now that it affects him personally he wants to “become an advocate for gay marriage.”

    In other words, he is a true Republican. He doesn’t care about anything unless it has an affect on HIM.

    Comment by steve — August 25, 2010 @ 10:18 pm - August 25, 2010

  11. Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization challenging Proposition 8 in federal court put forth : Ken Mehlman is chairing a major fundraiser in late September that has already raised over $1 million for the organization battling Prop 8. The fundraiser is co-chaired by prominent Republican donors Paul Singer and Peter Thiel and will be held at Singer’s home.
    Towleroad continues : A large number of other Republicans are co-hosts of the fundraiser including Mary Cheney, Margaret Hoover, and Steve Schmidt. Dick Gephardt is also among the hosts.

    So Dan, avoid the filters, just get a ticket $5000 and attend the party.
    You might get the story from Ken personally.
    Since it is in NY maybe Jimmy or Chris will jump on the Metro and attend.

    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/ken-mehlman-spearheading-major-fundraiser-in-case-against-prop-8.html

    Comment by rusty — August 25, 2010 @ 10:40 pm - August 25, 2010

  12. Oh, thank God!

    When i heard that Ken Mehlman had ‘Switched Teams’, i was afraid that he’d joined the Democratic Party.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — August 25, 2010 @ 11:55 pm - August 25, 2010

  13. Mike makes the comment: ” But what I am fascinated by are gays who support Republicans and think that progress will be made on gay issues if more Republicans are elected.” I could respond by reversing the question and asking why he thinks there will be more progress made on gay issues if more Democrats are elected. The last time I checked, Dick Cheney favored gay marriage and Obama opposed it.

    The fact is that whenever an interest group pledges allegiance to one party and only one party, then it will soon be taken for granted by that party. Hence we can witness the spectacle of gays voting largely as a block in favor of a candidate–Obama–who expressly opposed the issue of gay marriage–which many of them said they cared most about. Quite simply, Obama knows that he doesn’t have to take gay issues too seriously because he’ll keep getting the vast majority of gay voters.

    On the other hand, the most vibrant political movement around today–that of the tea party protests and tea party candidates–has coalesced largely around economic issues of excessive spending, taxation, and government overreach. Despite portrayals in the lamestream press, the tea party group is not racially or economically monolithic, and gays are quite welcome to be a part of the movement. Part of what the tea party movement can do is move the Republican party away from some of the social conservative issues which have been divisive in the past, and more towards economic and constitutional issues. But that shift is less likely to happen if gays continue to blindly vote for the Democrats who will continue to take their votes for granted.

    Comment by Kurt — August 25, 2010 @ 11:59 pm - August 25, 2010

  14. vs. 173 who voted to keep the ban in place.

    Do you suppose they might have valid reasons? For example, McCain doesn’t want to make such a change while we’re at war. Or do you just make the leap to the conclusion that they’re all racist, sexist, bigot homophobes? Do you suppose the liberals just don’t give a damn as long as they pander to a favored victim class?

    Now you can leave the GOP and join the party of equal rights: the Democrats.

    Just don’t expect the right to choose which school to send your kids, keep the money that YOU earn, decide what kind of lightbulb you can buy, decide what you want to eat, whether you can smoke in your own home, decide what you want to drive, decide what medical coverage you want, if you can worship how, when and where you want (unless you’re Muslim), whether or not you join a union etc. etc. etc.

    Sieg heil, baby!

    but that he was a member of a party that condoned, and even promoted, hatred of gays,

    [Citation Needed]

    But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes hatred of gays who aren’t Party Approved? But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes hatred of success and rewards failure? But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes hatred of our soldiers? But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes union and ACORN thugs assaulting Seasoned Citizens and bars people from town hall meetings? But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes the stalking and harassment of CEOs you don’t like? But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes the manufacture of “hate crimes” as long as it can be blamed on the right? But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes real fascist dictator thugs who’ve slaughtered millions of people? But you want him to join the party that condones and even promotes radical Islamists who subjugate women, kill women and gays, honor killings, hatred of Jews etc.?

    Shall I go on, sockpuppet?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 12:18 am - August 26, 2010

  15. Steve-

    The Democrats are the party of “bigots” that oppose gay marriage like Obama, Biden & Hillary.

    No point in joining the party of self-loathing Americans!

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 26, 2010 @ 12:51 am - August 26, 2010

  16. ThatGayConservative,

    Brilliant.

    Comment by Holly — August 26, 2010 @ 12:56 am - August 26, 2010

  17. It’s a self-interest thing and I get it.

    But of course, demanding for preferential treatment for yourself based on your sexual orientation is not.

    I’m curious what you think about the House vote to repeal DADT. 5 Republicans voted for it vs. 173 who voted to keep the ban in place.

    I think it shows the point of Republicanism — that the safety and security of our country are more important than pandering to a tiny minority which openly supports and endorses sabotaging our military anyway.

    And that’s really what you don’t get, Mike. Because you don’t care about anyone or anything else other than yourself, your primary concern is demanding that government pander to you and give you special treatment based on your sexual orientation.

    Or, put differently, since you insist that your sexual orientation is inborn and unchanging, you are demanding that the government give you special treatment based, not on performance, character, or ability, but simply because of your skin color — oops, sexual orientation.

    It is no surprise that the homosexist left gravitates towards the Obama Party, just as the racist left does; the entire mantra of the Obama Party is that performance and character are irrelevant and that the productive should be compelled to support the lazy and shiftless in the name of “equality”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 12:58 am - August 26, 2010

  18. By the way, what is it that all the whiny gay-sex liberals were complaining about?

    Oh yeah, since they themselves endorse and support FMA supporters, they themselves by their own standards endorse and support and push homophobia.

    This is why I think Mehlman is really dumb. He’s ditching the Republican Party and going over to the side of the irrational, hatemongering, hypocritical bigots.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 1:03 am - August 26, 2010

  19. Liberalism: Ask what the government can do for you and f**k everybody else.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 1:06 am - August 26, 2010

  20. Kurt said: “I could respond by reversing the question and asking why he thinks there will be more progress made on gay issues if more Democrats are elected.” This is answered pretty easily by my citation of the vote on DADT. That’s progress on gay rights, no? And opposed by the VAST majority of Republicans. You all may mock what President Obama has done regarding hospital visitation, State Dept. partners etc. and yet, presumably, President Bush could have also made those changes as well, during his 8 years in office. Why didn’t he? Did pro-gay marriage Dick Cheney forget to lobby him? I’ve seen so many gay conservatives call the changes Obama has made so far “piss-ant”. Apparently so piss-ant that they couldn’t get them enacted after 8 years of trying. One of the reasons gay conservatives rage at Obama so much is that any little victory proves how impotent and powerless you all were during the Bush Admin and the Republican Congressional dominance. As for Cheney, I’m so glad that he’s pro-gay marriage–good for him! Now that he has no actual policy influence, I’m sure his help is much appreciated. And the same goes for Mehlman. So, there are my reasons. The Republicans had 6 years of the Presidency and the Congress. Did federal gay rights improve at all during that time?

    ThatGayConservative: I did not associate any motive for the Republicans voting the way they did, I simply listed the count. Perhaps you are overly sensitive to harsh truths. I wonder why Sen. McCain failed to speak up in favor of ending DADT when we weren’t at war during the first nine months of President Bush’s term. I suspect that if we weren’t at war, Sen. McCain would have another reason for opposing ending the policy. In any event, Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen both have stated their belief that the policy should be ended. I wonder why so few Republicans failed to heed the military’s top leaders on this issue. When will we not be “at war”? Won’t the “War on Terror” last into perpetuity? So, really, there will never be a good time to end DADT, right?

    Comment by Mike — August 26, 2010 @ 1:09 am - August 26, 2010

  21. North Dallas Thirty: I don’t know if you are gay or not, but with comments like “…since you insist that your sexual orientation is inborn and unchanging”, I can’t imagine why conservatism hasn’t made more of an in-road into the tiny minority of gays and lesbians in the country. I don’t know about you, but my feelings on a group of people are not dependent upon what percentage of the country they make up. Indeed, Jews are a “tiny minority” in this country and I would abhor any policy that would ban Jews from serving in the military, marrying etc.

    Comment by Mike — August 26, 2010 @ 1:23 am - August 26, 2010

  22. One of the reasons gay conservatives rage at Obama so much is that any little victory proves how impotent and powerless you all were during the Bush Admin and the Republican Congressional dominance.

    What victory?

    I wonder why Sen. McCain failed to speak up in favor of ending DADT when we weren’t at war during the first nine months of President Bush’s term.

    I wonder why Hillary never drafted any kind of legislation on the matter when she was a Senator. How about Chairman Obama? I mean, if they thought it was THAT important, one would think they would have at least tried to submit a bill. I don’t think they cared one whit about it until they had to pander at the LOGO “debate”. The Breck Girl said he would overturn it by executive order. Nobody else seems to have felt that strongly about it.

    How many liberals tried to submit a bill to overturn it?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 1:39 am - August 26, 2010

  23. Bush signed the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, stated that he supported the right of the states to pass their own civil unions, appointed Scott Evertz and Michael Guest. Clearly that indicates that he’s a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe, right?

    Oh, and could you please define “gay rights”? Thanks.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 1:48 am - August 26, 2010

  24. North Dallas Thirty: I don’t know if you are gay or not, but with comments like “…since you insist that your sexual orientation is inborn and unchanging”, I can’t imagine why conservatism hasn’t made more of an in-road into the tiny minority of gays and lesbians in the country.

    Oh, it’s rather straightforward; as you demonstrate, gays and lesbians have no interest in matters being determined based on character, work ethic, and contribution to society, and instead demand handouts based on minority status and paid for by the work of others.

    To me, Mike, your screaming and whining about how “unfair” DADT is makes no more sense than an alcoholic screaming about how “unfair” drunk-driving laws are. You make your choice, you deal with the consequences.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 2:14 am - August 26, 2010

  25. I would call hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples and equal rights for couples at the State Department small victories. Small being operative, though for people directly impacted by those changes, not so small. I’m absolutely willing to laud Pres. Bush for signing a bill containing technical changes to regulations governing retirement funds. As for your second “accomplishment”, Bush’s stated support for allowing states to pass civil unions, I thought that talk was cheap. Or is that only when it comes to Pres. Obama? I suspect he and Sen. Clinton did not submit a bill because President Bush would have vetoed it. In any event, the repeal has been put forward, and we can all see how much your friends in the GOP support repeal. They consider you a threat to military cohesion, and apparently, you agree. That’s absolutely your right, and you’ll notice, you’re the only one here using terms like bigot, racist etc. I don’t need such terms to make my points, and I suspect that drives you crazy. Oh, and Michael Guest was a senior foreign service officer who had to either be appointed Ambassador or resign. Good for Bush for appointing him. Too bad Mr. Guest had this to say at his retirement: ” “I’ve felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner — who is my family — and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary’s leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.” It’s a good thing that the US now has a Secretary of State and a President who wouldn’t expect him to make that kind of choice.

    Also, I’d note that President Clinton’s appointment of Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay ambassador was blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate. Can’t imagine why. Finally, I would say the term “Gay rights” would comprise 2 broad areas: the enactment of laws protecting employment (including the military) and domestic partnership/marriage laws.

    Comment by Mike — August 26, 2010 @ 2:14 am - August 26, 2010

  26. Finally, I would say the term “Gay rights” would comprise 2 broad areas: the enactment of laws protecting employment (including the military) and domestic partnership/marriage laws.

    But, since gay-sex liberals like yourself and your organizations fully endorse and support people who support Federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and discriminate against gays in the workplace, you’re merely demonstrating that you are a complete and total hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 2:20 am - August 26, 2010

  27. Also, I’d note that President Clinton’s appointment of Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay ambassador was blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate.

    Interesting that you bring up Jim Hormel.

    Fine example of how a gay-sex liberal who supposedly is incapable of loving or having a meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex under any circumstances brags about his five children and thirteen grandchildren from his marriage.

    Here we thought sexual orientation was immutable and unchanging, and that gay and lesbian people were incapable of marrying, having sex with, or having any type of meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 2:24 am - August 26, 2010

  28. Wow, North Dallas Thirty, you’re really grasping here. Harold Ford’s support of FMA means all Democrats support FMA? I would say Ford’s opinion is about as mainstream in the Democratic Party as Susan Collins’ vote against FMA is mainstream in the Republican Party. I’d also point out that Ford was essentially hounded from the NY US Senate race over this issue. It’s hard to see how gays wouldn’t feel welcome in the GOP with charming people like you around. But then again, that’s just my “gay sex liberal” point of view.

    Comment by Mike — August 26, 2010 @ 2:48 am - August 26, 2010

  29. As for your second “accomplishment”, Bush’s stated support for allowing states to pass civil unions, I thought that talk was cheap. Or is that only when it comes to Pres. Obama?

    Well, to the gay left, when a Republican opposes gay marriage, he’s a homophobe. When a liberal opposes gay marriage (Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Obama etc.) they’re the best friends Gay Inc. could ask for. Frankly, I don’t get how you found it to be “cheap” except that your eyes were clouded by your own biases.

    As far as Chairman Obama “accomplishments” goes, I just find it interesting that he throws a bone to the gay left about the same time they start getting a might uppity and making trouble on the plantation. They shut up and nobody talks about it anymore.

    BTW, I have no idea where you got the ASSumption that I’m opposed to DADT. I consider it to be a huge damn shame that the liberal left has imposed on one of their pet victim groups. I’ll believe Chairman Obama is sincere about it when it happens.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 3:12 am - August 26, 2010

  30. I suspect he and Sen. Clinton did not submit a bill because President Bush would have vetoed it.

    Didn’t stop liberals from trying all sorts of bullshit legislation, did it? How many times did they try to undermine Bush’s CiC powers and how many times did they try to defund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 3:13 am - August 26, 2010

  31. It’s hard to see how gays wouldn’t feel welcome in the GOP with charming people like you around. But then again, that’s just my “gay sex liberal” point of view.

    Indeed it is.

    You see, Mike, your hypocrisy and failures are due to your own behaviors and attitudes, not to your sexual orientation.

    You simply use it as a convenient excuse.

    Republicans hold you accountable for your behavior regardless of your minority status.

    You simply aren’t capable of operating in that type of an environment. If you are not pandered to and given special privileges based on your minority status, you cannot function.

    Thus, it’s no surprise you in particular would feel unwelcome among Republicans, just as you hated those teachers who actually graded you rather than giving you an A for being gay and those bosses who actually expected you to show up and do some work instead of just paying you for being gay.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 3:14 am - August 26, 2010

  32. North Dallas Thirty, intersting about how you talk about teachers.

    Here in Fresno, CA we had a teacher who’s lesson plan included teaching that that “homosexuality is a disease.”

    Nice distraction though talking about getting an “A for being gay” or “being paid to be gay” when the real issue is about getting an F for being gay or getting fired from a job simply for being gay.

    “FCC Finds Teacher Created Hostile Learning Environment”

    http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/education&id=7336949

    Comment by David — August 26, 2010 @ 4:29 am - August 26, 2010

  33. Sorry, that’s “interesting.”

    Comment by David — August 26, 2010 @ 4:30 am - August 26, 2010

  34. Btw, that expecting “to be payed for being” gay is just bullshit.

    I’ve worked with dozens of gay people and not once have any of them asked to treated differently or demanded special privileges.

    But I see what you’re doing, you’re equating the right to be treated equally as an an expectation to be treated differently.

    Comment by David — August 26, 2010 @ 4:49 am - August 26, 2010

  35. Another interesting thing about Jim Hormel,

    Luxembourg is socially, one of the most conservative countries in Europe. Much of the disagreement about appointing him there was concerns about a) him being divorced and b) his sexual orientation being seen as a swipe at the traditional nation. I’d say it was akin to appointing Henry Kissinger as ambasador to Saudi Arabia.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 6:45 am - August 26, 2010

  36. I would call hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples and equal rights for couples at the State Department small victories.

    And victories from the left would be…

    It’s a good thing that the US now has a Secretary of State and a President who wouldn’t expect him to make that kind of choice.

    Yes, now we have a president and SoS who believe human rights matter.

    oh, wait.

    Well, at least he feels that now that he’s in office we can finally improve our record on human rights and be equal to such great places as China, Lybia and Iran.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 6:55 am - August 26, 2010

  37. “will give him no quarter”

    And why should we? He made millions off of the suffering of other gays and lesbians. He is the worst kind of scum. May he rot in hell.

    Comment by gaylib — August 26, 2010 @ 7:58 am - August 26, 2010

  38. Oh, now I finally get it. It took a long time, but I am a brick dumb homophobe and osmosis is not my main talent.

    The gay agenda is same sex marriage and repeal of DADT. When those two things are accomplished, all gays are satisfied and there will be a great gay homecoming and left wing gays will embrace right wing gays and a gentle breeze of respect and tolerance will waft across the land.

    In the meantime, are there ancillary aspects of TGA (THE Gay Agenda) that have slipped by my notice? Are we all at peace over fundamentalist Christian hate speech issues of calling gays sinners? Will all gays turn their attention toward the threats of Sharia? Will the Supreme Court finally require that everyone respect everyone? Will homosexual sex take its rightful place as just another way to do lust among the heterosexuals?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 26, 2010 @ 9:40 am - August 26, 2010

  39. Those whom should recieve no quarter from the Gay community are those mostly republican (sorry thats the way it is) people who suddenly come out after carving a path of hurt and heartache for the Gay community. Those like this little douchefag who activelly pursued, encourged, instigated, and assisted in the persecution and harm of the Gay community. I have no idea why they choose to harm their own kind. And I really don’t want to hear the crock of shit argument that “thats the way the party tilts” There are plenty of republicans who have been elected who haven’t been elected on the platform of wanting to burn everyone of their Gay constitutints at the stake. This scumbag has encouraged fire breathing minsiters to spew vile hatred from the pulpit every week against all things Gay. We have a tremendous battle for Gay marriage because so many states have laws on the books directley because of the actions of this scumbag. Thousands of Gay teens have been cast out of their homes, forced to sell their cocks for cash to survive and even commited suicide because he and his kind perpetuated the evil dogma that being Gay is a sin and wrong and there is no redemption for us……….

    Comment by steve — August 26, 2010 @ 9:59 am - August 26, 2010

  40. “There are plenty of republicans who have been elected who haven’t been elected on the platform of wanting to burn everyone of their Gay constitutints at the stake.”

    Like all of them.

    Ok, NDT, ILC, I got the joke now. steve’s a wonderful example of liberal parody. Which one of you are ghostwriting him?

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 10:27 am - August 26, 2010

  41. [...] Blatt, the Gay Patriot, also wonders how the left will react and noted: “One reason I oppose outing is that I know from experience — and not just my own — that when [...]

    Pingback by Ken Mehlman, yep, I’m gay « Don Surber — August 26, 2010 @ 11:01 am - August 26, 2010

  42. Here in Fresno, CA we had a teacher who’s lesson plan included teaching that that “homosexuality is a disease.”

    Given that gays and lesbians in Fresno make death threats against anyone who disagrees with them, I can certainly see where he’d get that attitude.

    And what’s really funny is that he probably wouldn’t have been fired had he said “conservativism is a disease” like gay and lesbian people do, even though that is just as much a “hostile learning environment”.

    And finally, since he’s Hispanic, that makes you a racist for wanting him disciplined. Indeed, since you are biased against Hispanics, that makes your posting a hate crime. And since you support death threats against religious people, that makes you guilty of hate crimes.

    Now blabber and spin your way out of that one. Your whole existence depends on unequal enforcement and double standards.

    I’ve worked with dozens of gay people and not once have any of them asked to treated differently or demanded special privileges.

    Liar. Liberal gays and lesbians demand sex from their coworkers and insist that anyone who disagrees with them doing so is acting out of “homophobia and sexism”.

    But I see what you’re doing, you’re equating the right to be treated equally as an an expectation to be treated differently.

    Right now gays and lesbians and straight people ARE treated equally under the law in terms of job protection. There are no laws preventing you from firing a person based on their sexual orientation regardless of what it is; you are perfectly within your rights to fire people for being straight.

    What you are demanding are quotas and restrictions based solely on sexual orientation that guarantee jobs to gays and lesbians regardless of how well they perform or what they do. You want INEQUALITY, given that you want gays and lesbians to not have to meet the standards that straight people do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 26, 2010 @ 11:59 am - August 26, 2010

  43. Just a personal observation from a heterosexual, middle-aged woman. I once worked at a restaurant with a number of conservative, gay customers. They told me that it was far more comfortable to be gay in a conservative environment than it was to be conservative in a gay environment.

    Comment by Megan — August 26, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - August 26, 2010

  44. We have a tremendous battle for Gay marriage because so many states have laws on the books directley because of the actions of this scumbag.

    And the Massachusetts decision had NOTHING to do with it?

    Thousands of Gay teens have been cast out of their homes, forced to sell their cocks for cash to survive

    Is that what happened to you? There’s therapy for that, you know.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 26, 2010 @ 12:24 pm - August 26, 2010

  45. Mike said:

    I’m a gay lefty and I’ve been checking out the blog recently. I am a little fascinated frankly, by groups like GOProud and by the Ken Mehlman situation. I can understand gay conservatives who are Republicans because they care about other issues before gay rights. It’s a self-interest thing and I get it. You make $450K a year and you want lower taxes. OK, fair enough.

    First off, Welcome Mike to the GP blog. It’s always nice to have a new (non-hysterical) voice contribute to the conversation.

    On your comment above, let me see if I can clarify. You are absolutely correct that the issue of gay rights is less important to us than other issues, but your conclusion as to why is off the mark. It is not naked self interest that drives us. Having been here for over five years, almost the entire lifespan of the blog, I can assure you that most of us that regularly blog and comment here do not make anywhere near $450K. It is not our self interest in that sense which drives us. We simply have an understanding of how economics works in the real world, and how government actions and policies will effect the health of the nation. (as written, that sounds arrogant. I don’t mean it to but I don’t have time to make it sound better). This is the bound that holds our group together. We recognize that the more money you pull from the private sector via taxes and forced govt mandates, the less money the private sector will have to fuel economic expansion. The public sector can create jobs, but the very nature of public sector structure makes any job creation much less efficient than the public side. The economic health of the country, which leads to better economic for all of us, is more important to us than gay issues.

    I own and operate my own business, and can tell you exactly what effect new taxes and regulations have on business. Every dollar I have to pay to the government is a dollar less I can use to buy more stock for the shelves, some new equipment, or a new work truck (I need a new work truck). Every moment I have to spend filling out the 30 1099 forms to re-document my purchases from Office Depot, Home Depot, and any other store I purchase stuff from is a waste f time as they are already declared on my tax forms, is time wasted where I should be out in the field working and earning money, stimulating the economy. Yet I have to anyway, because liberal lawyers in Congress, in an attempt to try and make the HCR look more budget neutral, have never run a business and have no idea how piling more legislation on top of more legislation hurts and destroys business. Some of the things stuffed into that Health Care Reform bill are just stupid (business friendly administration my ass)

    Another thing that drives us is foreign policy. They are committed to fighting the threat of terrorism abroad. Me? I part ways with my friends here at GP, and liberals too – I’m more in line with Ron Paul on this. But we are much more tolerant here than many left leaning blogs are on differences of opinion.

    Uh Oh, I’m rambling. I’m probably not being as clear and concise as I’d like as I’m rushing to get out the door.

    What I was trying to say is that we try and put the health of the country as a whole ahead of our own personal issues. Many (most) of want to see DADT repealed. Many (not all) of us would like to be able to call the union of our partners a marriage, and have it be recognized as such. We simply believe there are greater concerns that need to be dealt with than these issues

    I must go work now. If you reply, i’ll try and get to it this afternoon.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 26, 2010 @ 12:54 pm - August 26, 2010

  46. Here in Fresno, CA we had a teacher who’s lesson plan included teaching that that “homosexuality is a disease.”

    Given that gays and lesbians in Fresno make death threats against anyone who disagrees with them, I can certainly see where he’d get that attitude.

    And what’s really funny is that he probably wouldn’t have been fired had he said “conservativism is a disease” like gay and lesbian people do, even though that is just as much a “hostile learning environment”.

    Dude! Talk about spin!

    Your first response is a complete non-sequitur. The death threats against the former mayor and the pastor are a completely different issues.

    First, the teacher in question was a loon and a bad teacher. He had many complaints against him concerning other issues having nothing to do with homosexuality. That was simply the last straw. I thought we were all for getting rid of bad teachers.

    On Mayor Autry and the Rev Franklin – both have radio shows here in the market, both are very high profile figures. Both have received hate mail and threats from other groups. It’s the nature of the business. Yes, the person(s) who sent those threats were almost certainly self identified as belonging to the Gay Community”, and yes, the person(s) who sent the death threat should be punished, but in your blind lashing out you don’t even see what you’ve done. You paint with such a large brush, you’re using the same tactic that liberals use to try and smear the Tea Party when some idiot holds up a stupid sign, or one man, say Alan Keyes, is used to stain the rest of the Tea Party folks.

    Dammit, I really have to go to work!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 26, 2010 @ 1:15 pm - August 26, 2010

  47. I think a more ammusing example is the parody howling about how Republicans are ‘evil’ ‘poison’ and should ‘burn in hell’ and then howling that a teacher might be indoctrinating his students in something he believes. (and to be absolutely technical, prior to the DSM IV was correct.)

    Then again, if steve was a real person, and not one of y’all trying to liven up the blog with a parody liberal, I might feel pity that he can’t find validation in his own life and only can attack others.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 26, 2010 @ 1:55 pm - August 26, 2010

  48. recieve no quarter ….. carving …. path ….. hurt ….. heartache ….. little douchefag ….. activelly pursued, encourged, instigated, ….. assisted ….. persecution ….. harm of ….. Gay community….. they choose to harm their own kind ….. crock of shit argument ….. platform of wanting to burn everyone of their Gay constitutints at the stake ….. scumbag …. encouraged fire breathing minsiters ….. spew vile hatred ….. against all things Gay….. Thousands of Gay teens ….. cast out of their homes ….. forced to sell their cocks for cash to survive ….. even commited suicide ….. he ….. his kind ….. evil dogma ….. being Gay is a sin ….. no redemption for us……….

    When you get to heart of steve’s message, you might think he is a bit consumed with rancor.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 26, 2010 @ 3:22 pm - August 26, 2010

  49. He does seem to be consumed with vapors of some kind…..

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 26, 2010 @ 3:24 pm - August 26, 2010

  50. [...] reminds us yet again of that we, as gay conservatives, have long experienced and what our reader Megan so perfectly articulated in a recent comment: Just a personal observation from a heterosexual, middle-aged woman. I once worked at a restaurant [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Easier to be gay in a conservative environment than to be conservative in a gay environment — August 26, 2010 @ 5:59 pm - August 26, 2010

  51. Thanks SonicFrog, for the reply and the insight. I can certainly respect your reasons, even if I don’t share them. I’ll try to post when I find something interesting to say on an issue! Thanks!

    Comment by Mike — August 26, 2010 @ 11:08 pm - August 26, 2010

  52. [...] in blogging about Ken Mehlman’s coming out, I wrote that there would be some “decent gay lefties” who would not go for this good man’s jugular, treating him instead him with decency [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot — August 27, 2010 @ 3:38 am - August 27, 2010

  53. [...] Daniel Blatt at GayPatriot is more worried about the personal toll of a public coming out. My greatest fear for Mehlman is that he has to go through the often [...]

    Pingback by A Republican Comes Out of the Closet - NYTimes.com — August 27, 2010 @ 8:27 pm - August 27, 2010

  54. Um, wait — “some [gay people] may let their fellow feeling trump their ideological conviction” and give Mehlman a break? Like you can use “fellow feeling” and Ken Mehlman in the same paragraph? Where was his “fellow-feeling” when he was throwing his fellow-feeling GLBTs under the bus, for pay? Seriously, you ought to think these things through before you write them. Luckily this is just a blog, blissfully unconcerned with formalities like a professional editor.

    Comment by Jay Spears — August 28, 2010 @ 2:11 am - August 28, 2010

  55. You paint with such a large brush, you’re using the same tactic that liberals use to try and smear the Tea Party when some idiot holds up a stupid sign, or one man, say Alan Keyes, is used to stain the rest of the Tea Party folks.

    Little reminder of what I posted, Sonic. :)

    Now blabber and spin your way out of that one. Your whole existence depends on unequal enforcement and double standards.

    In short, I turned his own worldview and ideology against him.

    Meanwhile, I am for getting rid of bad teachers. But in this case, I can’t help but thinking……why, if he truly was that bad, did it take so long to get rid of him?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 28, 2010 @ 4:53 pm - August 28, 2010

  56. Where was his “fellow-feeling” when he was throwing his fellow-feeling GLBTs under the bus, for pay?

    By what? Supporting the FMA, supporting state constitutional amendments, supporting workplace discrimination?

    Seriously. Mehlman’s only mistake was clearly in being a Republican. Had he been an Obama Party member, you wouldn’t have said word boo.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 28, 2010 @ 4:55 pm - August 28, 2010

  57. End hyperlink

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 28, 2010 @ 4:56 pm - August 28, 2010

  58. I wrote a longer response but then decided that you should keep up being yourself. At first I felt a little sorry for you and Mr. Mehlman but then I thought “these are smart adults who make their own decisions”… Good luck on your journey – I only feel sorry for the guy who would actually date you and deal with your “self-loathing”.

    Cheers!!!!

    Comment by j kane — August 29, 2010 @ 1:19 am - August 29, 2010

  59. j kane, please tell me just exactly how you determined I was self-loathing and provide as evidence not what people on the left say about gay conservatives but what I have said here on this blog (or with other evidence you have about my life).

    Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 29, 2010 @ 1:26 am - August 29, 2010

  60. You make a lot of noxious assumptions about “gays on the left” that show how difficult it is for you to remove yourself from your own political stereotypes, with which you perpetuate negative self-reinforcing opinions of what you’re a step away from calling “The Homosexual Agenda”.

    Most gay people, as I’m sure you know, find themselves politically on the Left not out of some mysterious “agenda” on the left, but because the right has shamelessly exploited homosexuality as a wedge issue. That’s not even up for debate. It’s an acknowledged fact on both sides of the political spectrum. It’s something Mehlman himself acknowledges.

    So comments like “All too many on the left… [will] lambaste him as a self-hating hypocrite, may even try to follow him around, possibly even accosting him in public. They will not give him the space to deal with this in private and in his own way.” not only sound distorted and histrionic, but they perpetuate the same tired narrative of those on the political right who admittedly use scapegoating as a political strategy and then cry “victim!” when the worm turns.

    Most gay people want equal rights under the law and to get on with their lives, period. The political right is what is keeping us from doing it, and the right is keeping us from it for political gain. You don’t even have to be political to be opposed to that M.O.

    But nobody’s going to follow Mehlman around and disturb the delicate process of his private coming out (complete with chichi coming-out party). Mehlman is not that big a deal to liberals. He’s just another Republisexual. Another anti-gay gay Republican *yawn*.

    And though it’s kid of you to worry about the ease of his coming-out, it won’t get you invited to his party. Because it’s not a pity party. Mehlman is not a victim, and you’re not going to turn him into one. You might take a lesson from him.

    Comment by mmennonno — August 30, 2010 @ 7:54 am - August 30, 2010

  61. mmennonno, trying to figure out the point of your comment. And I don’t see how “the political” right (as you put it) is preventing us from getting on with our lives.

    That said, you refer to Mehlman as “Another anti-gay gay Republican *yawn*.” Please elaborate. Not sure how the guy is anti-gay.

    Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 30, 2010 @ 11:00 am - August 30, 2010

  62. You make a lot of noxious assumptions about “gays on the left” that show how difficult it is for you to remove yourself from your own political stereotypes

    Not really, when you see what passes for acceptable behavior and discourse among “gays on the left”.

    And when you consider how gays on the left endorse and support state and Federal bans on gay-sex marriage, it becomes blatantly obvious that they’re really nothing more than opportunistic hypocrites.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2010 @ 11:28 pm - August 30, 2010

  63. Gee, how perceptive of Ken Mehlman to suggest that gay Americans join with Republicans opponents of Islamic jihad. What was he trying to say? Did he even know because I’m pretty sure he hadn’t a clue. Unfortunately, his comment’s pretty typical of lots of Americans who work for our government NOT to know much about countries outside the States…much less about about the countries we invade. Oh, now I remember, Ken: y’all got rid of the Arabic linguists in the Army because they were gay. Well, since so few Americans even care to study another language or culture, we can expect more of the same ignorance from persons like you. I suggest a lot more understanding of the complexities of the Muslim world in Iran, Indonesia, Western China, and Northern Africa, and less focusing on the evangelical Islam of the Saudis, will serve as a correction to Mr. Mehlman’s stupid remark. For that matter, less attention to evangelical Christianity would serve the United States well on the home front, too. Maybe we wouldn’t presume so much. Or hate so much.

    Comment by Bryan — September 1, 2010 @ 2:40 am - September 1, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.