Gay Patriot Header Image

The simple answer to your question, Jennifer, is, “Yes,”
(gay marriage advocates are being taken for fools)

Let me begin by reminding you of some important facts.  Democrat Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, with strong support from gay groups, including many supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage.

When he took office, the president’s party, the Democratic, enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  From July 7, 2009 until February 4, 2010, that majority was filibuster-proof, that is, Senate Democrats didn’t need a single Republican vote to invoke cloture; they could vote on any item they wanted to.  Said legislative Democrats never voted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or even to pass a federal civil unions bill.  They only got their act together to vote on repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) after the election, but before the swearing in, of a Republican Congress in November 2010.

In short, Democrats in the 111th Congress had the chance to act on issues of concern to gay Americans, but failed to do so.

Now to the question.  Earlier today, Jennifer Rubin asked, “Are gay-marriage advocates being taken as fools?

On “Meet the Press,” Vice President Joe Biden said he’d be “comfortable with gay marriage,” an odd formulation for an important matter of public policy. (This is truly liberalism’s triumph of good intentions over actions.)

. . .

This is becoming the proverbial Lucy and the football. One wonders how often pro-gay-marriage activists, like poor Charlie Brown, are going to fall for this stuff.

. . . .

First, forking over lots of money gives you access; threatening to cut it off gets you attention. The leverage is with the gay community, whose financial and electoral power is considerable. But as long as the campaign takes gay voters (like Jews, Hispanics and union members) for granted, there is no reason for President Obama to move on this before the election.

Maybe had HRC not been so quick to endorse Obama, they might have been able to extract some concessions from the Democrat.  It seems though that the heads of that and other gay groups would rather be loved by the Democrats than see legislation passed recognizing our relationships.

UPDATE:  Deborah Kerr reminds us (@ 2:35 below) how HRC treats Obama: (more…)

Still wanting to impeach W — 3 years after he left the White House

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - May 7, 2012.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,LA Stories

Remember the old joke from the 1990s about knowing it’s time to get a new Volvo when the McGovern sticker starts to peel off.

They may have to make up such jokes about anti-Bush bumper strips.  Just caught this today and snapped the picture with Canon PowerShot A490, enhancing it via iPhoto:

UPDATE: When I posted this picture on a political group on Facebook, one subscriber wrote, ” If Bush were impeached today, would Cheney become President? :-)”

If the answer is, “Yes,” I’m all for impeachment.

Vote No on North Carolina’s Amendment One

If I lived in North Carolina, I’d be preparing to vote, “No,” tomorrow on Amendment One. The ballot proposition would not just enshrine the traditional definition of marriage into the Tar Heel State’s constitution, it also “would ban any other type of ‘domestic legal union’ such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.”  Draconian though the amendment is, it does leave some wiggle room to same-sex couples with this language:

This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

That said, I believe voters should defeat this amendment. It prevents the state’s elected legislature from responding to changing social conditions.

Defeat of the amendment would not lead to state recognition of same-sex marriages — or even same-sex civil unions.  North Carolina would continue to recognize as marriages only unions between one man and one woman.  That definition would just not be part of its constitution; future legislatures (and even the current one) would simply remain free to consider means to provide benefits to same-sex couples.

From what I have read, largely through Pam Spaulding‘s Facebook links, it seems that opponents of Amendment One, have done a far better job than those opposing California’s Prop 8 of enlisting business groups in the campaign against the ballot measure. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, for example, released this statement last month:

North Carolina’s proposed Amendment 1 is bad for business. It will interfere with employer’s ability to recruit talent and their right to provide competitive benefits to their employees. It also signals to employers and employees that North Carolina is not welcoming to the diverse, creative workforce that we need to compete in the global economy. We should not do anything that diminishes any corporation’s interest in locating or remaining in North Carolina.

Exactly.  A Bank of America executive (B of A is based in Charlotte) feared the amendment, if passed, would have a “disastrous effect“: (more…)

Blogging may be a little slow this week . . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:00 pm - May 7, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Movies/Film & TV

I had intended to take time off from blogging last week, having, when I returned from the Bay Area, outlined a series of articles I would introduce and excerpt and devote the week to my mythological studies and laying the groundwork to start writing my fantasy epic (as well as other unrelated obligations), but then the Grenell story broke.  It was one of those stories that I knew I needed to address for a great variety of reasons, some evident, others not.*

I spent a good deal of time researching the story (and even trying to contact the man in question).

As a result, I didn’t have the time last week to focus on the matters to which I had intended to devote my time.  Hoping to take on those matters this week, I expect to slow down my blogging pace for the next few days.  (Ironically, one of the pieces I had planned was on Don Surber’s decision to stop blogging due to blogger burnout.)  I have a post planned on North Carolina’s Amendment One which I expect to post shortly, then may get a few short ones up later today, but do hope you understand if I am not posting at the pace to which y’all are accustomed.  And hope you understand why I only did two cursory post over the weekend–was nice not to feel obligated to write about politics.

Because sometimes when it comes to politics, I feel like Michael Corleone is The Godfather, Part III:

*Perhaps to address those not so evident ones in subsequent posts. Perhaps.

Why is it when you criticize a Facebook friend’s post defending Obama* . . .

. . .  some folks respond by attacking Republicans instead of defending Obama*.

*or his policies.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Budding Economist and I have had similar experiences as indicated when he asks, “The second question is, why are we accused of being political for merely offering a rebuttal of the original, political comment?”

I have decided to avoid posting political pieces on Facebook, but have chosen to respond to friends’ political Facebook posts and sometimes get skewered not for the comment of my response, but for politicizing things. . . .

MORE FROM THE COMMENTS:  dot has also had similar experiences:

What bugs me is that if you make a polite rebuttal to whatever lib talking point they have posted, then are hit with a personal character attack instead of a response to your rebuttal. It’s just really annoying.

Bugs me too.

Watcher of Weasels–First Winners of May

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:48 pm - May 7, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Conservative Ideas

This past week, The Noisy Room‘d Pathological Politics – Predatory Partners and Persecuting Patriots won the gold in the council category.  And taking home the laurel in the non-Council category was the City Journal/Joel Kotkin‘s piece The New Class Warfare.

The remaining winners, in their respective categories, are:

Council Winners (more…)