Gay Patriot Header Image

Offering an un-PC view of homosexuality is “hate speech”?!?!

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:40 pm - March 20, 2012.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness,Gays & religion

There seems to be a pattern among gay activists and their supporters in the legacy media, to define as “hatred” any opposition to their views on homosexuality.  Now, I do not share Kirk Cameron’s view that homosexuality is “unnatural” and believe this view shows an incredible ignorance of the history of human behavior and of artistic and mythological representations of human relationships.

That said, there is a difference between expressing a view colored by a fundamentalist faith and manifesting animus to those who do not live by the strictures of that faith.  In expressing his (very) un-PC views (and, in my mind, narrow) opinion on homosexuality, Cameron has never adopted a hostile (or hateful) attitude toward gay people.

In her interview with the actor, however, the Today show’s Ann Curry asked if his remarks were “hate speech” and wondered if he were “encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people“.  Later, she speculates that his words might make others feel it’s okay to “mistreat gay people”.

The question is not so much why Mr. Cameron holds these views, but why Ms. Curry would compare them to “hate speech.”  Couldn’t she have questioned them using different language, asking instead why he believes homosexuality to be unnatural, possibly rebutting him with evidence of social tolerance for homosexuality in, say, the ancient Near East and classical Greece?

Seems she’s more interested in reducing his views to animus than in actually understanding his opinion–or changing his mind.

Commenting on the interview, John Nolte contends, “Ann Curry and Leftists like her don’t give a damn about gays. If they did, you would see the same amount of hostility directed towards Muslims.

How soft is Obama’s support?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - March 20, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

In a thoughtful post this morning Jim Geraghty offered his theory . . .

. . . that most apolitical voters desperately want to avoid concluding that the first African-American President of the United States is a failure, on par with a second term for Jimmy Carter. As a result, they will give Obama until the very last minute to demonstrate an ability to get the job done, to demonstrate that he can generate tangible improvements in their lives. But, if around October 2012, people don’t see tangible improvements in their lives, well . . . the bottom may fall out of his numbers. He’ll still have his loyal base, but the vast majority of independents will decide he just can’t get the job done.

An interesting notion; the entire post merits your attention.  As I was reading it earlier today, I recalled a detail Ed Morrissey’s highlighted in his post last Friday on the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll:

Even with a skewed sample with an eight-point advantage for Democrats, only 27% of men and 32% of women say they will definitely vote for Obama in 2012, and only 31% overall.  That’s actually lower than the percentage of women in the sample who are Democrats (37%) and men as well (32%). (more…)

Holding Democrats to their own standards*

Seems John Hinderaker has a point when he blogs:

The Democrats’ attack on Rush Limbaugh hasn’t turned out the way they had hoped. The blowback, in the form of conservatives pointing out the outrageous conduct of liberals like Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann, has dwarfed the original reaction against Rush. Worse, the blowback continues. So Democrats are now in the position of trying to shut down the conversation about civility and misogyny that they opportunistically started.

Yesterday, Sister Toldjah linked an RNC video which, in her words, “focuses attention on the double standardsof this administration and its supporters on the manufactured ‘War On Women’ non-issue”:

The good sister notes that this video  focuses not just on Bill Maher’s juvenile language, but also “the reports that came out in September last year about the Ron Suskind book on the administration that included tantalizing tidbits on information from WH insiders (both former and current) on how the WH has supposedly been ‘hostile to women’ – especially in the early days.”

* (more…)

Getting free stuff from the government won’t necessarily help you find happiness

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:09 pm - March 20, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Freedom,Happiness

Love the way Mitt keeps his poise as he faces a hostile question:

Another example of how calm the former Massachusetts governor is under fire, a quality which will serve him well should he become the Republican nominee and face an ever more hostility from the media and liberal activists than he currently faces.

Posting the vide, Santorum supporter Ed Morrissey (to whom I tip my hat for the video), observes that

Romney has struggled to connect with conservatives, but in this case he hits the nail on the head.  The woman uses the common, historically- and politically-illiterate argument that “pursuit of happiness” means a right to delivery of happiness.  Nowhere in the foundational documents of this nation does the right to achieved happiness exist — only that government will stay out of the way of citizens who seek it to the greatest degree possible.

In this case, the woman believes that free contraception will make her happy.  That conflicts, however, with people of faith who think that not funding or facilitating contraception will make them happy, for whatever motives they have.  The proper role of government in this case is to stay out of the way of both, (more…)

In Memoriam, Thom Mosley

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:39 pm - March 20, 2012.
Filed under: Great Men

We often speak on this blog on the intolerance we gay conservatives experience from our liberal peers, but in one particular gay environment, Outfest, Los Angeles’s gay and lesbian film festival, I have, by and large, experienced nothing but tolerance from other volunteers and theater managers holding different political views from my own.

Chief among those individuals was Thom Mosley, the man who taught me how to manage a theater when I was promoted.  Even upon learning my politics, he continued to treat me, as he had previously treated me–as he treated all individuals–with dignity and with grace.  Yeah, he’d rib me from time to time, but in a jovial and good-natured way.  And he listened when I offered my opinion.

He had the rare gift of composure in a crisis.  Few could manage a sold-out show — or difficult filmmakers — with greater class than he.

He demonstrated those qualities to which we should all aspire.  Thom passed away yesterday after a long battle with cancer.  He was a great — and a good — man.  He will be missed.

May the Holy One bring comfort to his family and friends at this difficult time.

Different presidents, different (media) standards

Over at Commentary Contentions, Michael Rubin contrasts the media reaction to the actions of a handful of U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison to the murderous shooting spree conducted by one soldier recently in Afghanistan:

The reaction to Abu Ghraib was too often cheap, as pundits and partisans sought to ascribe guilt up to and including President Bush and Vice President Cheney. In the aftermath of the Afghanistan shooting, some Republicans criticized Obama for apologizing—but were roundly and rightly castigated by other Republicans.

That so many sought to transform the evil occurrences at Abu Ghraib into a partisan whip with which to flog Bush was wrong.

The military, as Rubin reminds us, has launched an investigation into the actions at the Iraqi prison before the media got wind of the story.  (Read the whole thing; it’s short.)

In both cases, a rogue American service member (or members) committed atrocities, evil in their own right and damaging to the U.S. national interest.  In neither case had the president ordered (or the military countenanced) the actions.  And yet there wasn’t the same media frenzy for the more recent barbarity.

Wonder why that is.

Rick didn’t read the various states’ “manuals” for ballot access

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:30 am - March 20, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

At family gatherings, whenever someone is having trouble with his digital camera — or wondering how to use some its special features, my younger brother-in-law loves to chide us with this refrain, “Read the d**n manual.”

Rick Santorum could use the same advice. As Joel Gehrke reported yesterday in the Washington Examiner, the former Pennsylvania Senator recently whined about his failure to qualify for the ballot in certain states:

Rick Santorum denounced the “arcane” and “byzantine” state ballot access requirements that have prevented him from being on the ballot in key elections, as he called for Mitt Romney to support his efforts to have his name on the ballots.

“I think we should have ballot requirements [that] let the candidates on if you’re a legitimate candidate for president,” Santorum said on Fox and Friends today. “They shouldn’t have these byzantine ballot requirements that — as we saw particularly in Virginia — that keep legitimate candidates off the ballot.”

Perhaps, they shouldn’t have had those byzantine requirements, Senator, but they did.  It’s not the job of a politician to live in an ideal world where things are as they should be, but, in the real world, where they are as they are.

A soon as he launched his campaign, the candidate should have designated a staffer to coordinate ballot access in all 50 states — as well as the District of Columbia and various territories sending delegates to the Republican National Convention.

In short, he should have read these jurisdictions’ “manuals” for ballot access.  His failure to do so suggests a man not equipped for the responsibilities of executive leadership.

MItt wonders how a young American could vote for a Democrat

It’s the deficit spending.

When I first heard that Mitt Romney had made this comment, I thought he was referencing the trouble young people have had finding jobs in this Obama economy, but then I took a listen. Interesting how he makes the comment, hesitates, then explains that young people should be concerned about the debt accumulated by this president and his party to pay for benefits to his generation, debt on which they’ll have to pay interest.

(H/t: Gateway Pundit.)

In 2008, many young people backed Obama not because of the particular policies he espoused, but because of the image he projected. Now that they’ve seen that his record in office has burdened their generation more than any other, perhaps they’ll have a change of heart this fall.

One can only hope for such a change.