Gay Patriot Header Image

Gov. Christie favors recognition of same-sex civil unions

One again, the outspoken governor of New Jersey doesn’t mince words.

Now, I’m sure some folks will call this good man a “hater” for holding to the traditional definition of marriage. What stands out here is that he publicly dares to differ with the doctrine of his church and has come out clearly in favor of same-sex civil unions.

All that notwithstanding, he’ll still remain a folk hero to many straight conservatives.

(Via Jimmy LaSalvia on Facebook.)

The (grassroots) gay consensus on Weiner’s misdeeds

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:02 pm - June 15, 2011.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Perhaps the most heartening thing about the Weiner scandal is the extent to which it helps restore my faith in my fellow gays.  Well, some bloggers may try to excuse his behavior as the new normal or some such, every single gay person with whom I have spoken (or e-mailed) about the matter says the congressman behaved boorishly, that is, as I wrote here, they understand that marriage changes things.

Had Weiner not been married, most of them grant, they would have held him to a different, less lofty, standard.  Some of my interlocutors, to be sure, contend that if he was going to engage in online flirtations, he could have made it “okay” by being open with his wife about his internet interactions.  Despite their looser definition of martial fidelity, even these folks do acknowledge that a married man has responsibilities which a single man lacks.

Telling this story would certainly strengthen the case for state recognition of same-sex marriage.  In the matter of the married Anthony Weiner, there does seem to be a difference in the attitude of the official designated spokespeople for our community and the average, everyday homosexual.

Let me hope that I’m not the only gay man to point this out in a public forum.

Of Comments & Civility, iv

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:21 pm - June 15, 2011.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse

In the comment thread to one of my recent posts on Palin Derangement Syndrome, a number of readers either took our defenders to task for appropriate language or faulted me for not calling them on it.

I answered those criticizing me briefly, “those who use this forum to take issue with my critics in terms I would rather they not use do not speak for me.” Indeed, I believe the ad hominem nature of some responses to our critics weakens their (otherwise sound) arguments, and have told our defenders as much in private e-mails, personal conversations and on this blog, writing here and here:

All too often alas, those who chime in to defend Bruce or me compromise some very strong comments when they resort to ad hominem, using the term “libtard’ or some such. In many cases, if they took the insult out of the comment, they’d have won the argument anyway. That need to get in that additional dig, while emotional satisfying, compromises their entire argument and gives our critics ammunition to attack them.

“Friends,” I once remarked, “you make a better case when you leave out the ad hominem.”   While many have used the forum we provide to conduct serious discussions of the issue of the day, most recently in my post on Anthony Weiner and marriage, all too often the tone of the comments drives away some of our critics — as well as some of our ideological confrères.

It pained me recently when a moderately left-of-center classmate from college e-mailed me about how the discussion quickly degenerated.  And this from a reader who took pains to register his criticism of my posts in a most civil manner, respecting as he did, both my intellect and intentions.  Would it that some of our defenders had showed a similar respect for him.

And for all our critics who chime in in a tone similar to that he adopted.  And that our critics show the same respect for us and those who defend us in a civil manner.

Why we love Ferris Bueller

Almost two weeks ago, I derided film snobs for telling us what kind of movies we should and shouldn’t like.  Yesterday, the fetching Stephen Green (sorry, fellas, he’s straight; sorry, gals, he’s married) took one to task for doing the same sort of thing, lamenting the enduring appeal of one of the greatest films of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

And this flick is more than just an entertaining one.  It endures because it presents Ferris as a man whose attitude was worthy of emulation.  As Green puts it:

Ferris, in other words, had plenty of adversity. He just handled his with the aplomb the rest of us wish we had. Everybody at school loved him for that. And why shouldn’t they? After all — we love him for it, too.

Not only do we love him for it, but this attitude has a very real effect in the life of his uptight best  friend, with Bueller serving as “the catalyst for the deep changes which Cameron [that friend] undergoes.”

As Glenn, who alerts us to the post, might say, “Read the whole thing.”

(Looming) Gay Rights’ Victory in Scott Walker’s Wisconsin!

Thanks to the Republican Senate in the Badger State, gay people may soon have a tool to protect themselves against assault.  Would-be gay bashers will now tread more carefully knowing that gay people could be packing:

The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow concealed weapons in the state Capitol and other public places, but not in police stations, courthouse and other specifically exempted locations.

The final vote was 25-8, with all 19 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it, and the other eight Democrats opposed.

Wisconsin would become the 49th state to legalize carrying hidden guns. Those who want to carry the weapons would have to obtain a permit.

Before the bill goes to Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who backs the measure, it must also pass the Assembly. That could happen later in the week.

Thank you, Governor Walker, for supporting a means to give law-abiding gay people a means to protect themselves.  Via Instapundit.


No longer Bush’s Fault(tm), our man-boy President now blames…. wait for it….. technology instead of his economic policies for our stagnant economy.

President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren’t hiring is not because of his policies, it’s because the economy is so automated. … “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”

Oh brother.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan):  Is it just me, or did Obama sound whiny when he blamed ATMs.  And wasn’t he supposed to be the hip politician who embraced new technology?  Don’t think this will play well with most Americans, may make him look as out of touch as some president who at least according to an inaccurate report in the New York Times was unfamiliar with a grocery store checkout scanner.

UP-UPDATE (from Bruce):  An ATM has responded to this scurrilous attack from Obama.

I didn’t do it.

President Obama says I’m to blame for high unemployment – part of the “structural” problems with the economy. Yes, he actually said my electronic brethren and I – who dispense cash and make lines move a little more quickly at the airport – are part of the reason 1.5 million fewer Americans have jobs than when the “stimulus” was enacted.

But before the president fingered us as responsible for job losses, he sought to take credit for the sluggish economy.

And even DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said this morning that Democrats own the economy. I don’t. I’m just an ATM. I don’t own anything.