Gay Patriot Header Image

WeHo’s The Abbey bans “bachelorette” parties

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:40 pm - May 24, 2012.
Filed under: Freedom,Gay Marriage,LA Stories

Over the past decade, the Abbey has grown into one of the premiere gay watering holes in West Hollywood (if not all of Southern California).  When passing through the Southland, many of my gay friends insist on stopping by.  And as the establishment’s profile has increased, it has drawn an increasingly mixed crowd, including a good number of straight women.

This has not sat well with a good number of gay people.

Perhaps aware of the growing discontent of its core clientele or perhaps because of the reasons it offers, “The Abbey“, reports Simone Wilson of the LA Weekly

. . . is making a statement of its own: Until marriage is an option for everyone everywhere, ignorant straight chicks in penis hats are exiled from the building.

This will be the first all-out ban on bachelorette parties in the Los Angeles area. But WeHo patriots might be surprised to learn that in Chicago’s premiere gayborhood, bachelorette parties have been blacklisted for a few years now. Always one step ahead of us, that Boystown!

Given the complaints I have heard, I wonder if the management of the Abbey has decided to dress up their decision in politically correct rhetoric.  But, its reasons shouldn’t matter.  The Abbey is a private establishment and should be free to determine its clientele — and the types of celebrations it hosts.

And if straight women don’t like this decision, well, then, no one’s requiring them to patronize the Abbey.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Richard Bell sums it up, “Freedom of association is the American way.”  I might quibble a bit with his expression adding “one aspect of” between “is” and “the”.

On Pastor Worley, Crackpot Ministers & the Media

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:04 pm - May 24, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias,Religion (General)

Over the past week or so, I have seen numerous postings on Facebook and a number of stories on CNN about a North Carolina pastor who somehow seems to have forgotten about the biblical injunction to love your neighbor:

I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers, but I couldn’t get it past the Congress,” Pastor Charles L. Worley can be seen telling his Providence Road Baptist Church congregation in the video, which had more than 250,000 YouTube views by Tuesday.

“Build a great big, large fence – 50 or a 100 miles long – and put all the lesbians in there,” Worley went on to say in his May 13 sermon at his Maiden, North Carolina, church. “Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed them. And you know in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.”

Does this guy really believe that only homosexuals can produce homosexual children?  (That would be news to my heterosexual Mom and Dad.)  Even those trusting in the efficacy of “reparative therapy” don’t favor herding gay people into concentration camps.

As CNN and our Facebook friends focus on — and rightly condemn — Mr. Worley, I wonder where these folks were when other crackpots were preaching hate from their pulpits.

It is sick that members of Worley’s flock would stand by their pastor, preferring his word to the biblical command to love your neighbor.  His congregation though is only one of many.  But, he’s not the only pastor preaching hate.  It would be nice to see CNN expose those on the Christian left who seem incapable of accepting that some of their neighbors merit affection.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Lori builds on my point:

The anti gay preacher is a loon and so is Wright. The media are all over this very inconsequential preacher (that conservatives sure think is flakey and hateful), but they were mum about Wright, who preached hating whites and hating America. It’s not just anti gay hate that needs to stop, it all needs to stop.

Not proud of Obama’s shift on gay marriage

Yesterday, I wrote that I’d “have to agree to disagree” with Richard Grenell’s expression of “pride in the president’s patently political statement” announcing his shift on gay marriage.  Like two-thirds of Americans in a recent poll, I believe the Democrat flipped on gay marriage “mostly for political reasons“.  Not even one quarter of Americans surveyed thought he made the decision because he believed it to be the right thing.

Perhaps had he better articulated his support for gay marriage, making the case why expanding the definition of this ancient institution would be a good thing both for the individuals who elect its benefits as well as for the society which recognizes same-sex couples as married.

Given the president’s failure to adequately articulate the reasons for his sudden change of heart “evolution” and the survey cited above, his statement which may cause numerous gay activists (nearly all previously favorably disposed to the Democrat) to feel good about themselves, will do little to further state recognition of same-sex unions.

Perhaps had the president, instead of announcing his switch in an interview with a friendly reporter, made a speech, putting forward ideas in favor of marriage similar to those offered by Jonathan Rauch, I might take him more seriously.  But, given the alacrity of his campaign — and Democratic affiliates — to use his new position for political/fundraising purposes, it seems that his switch was more related to the needs of his campaign than to an appreciation of the social benefits of matrimony.

Richard Grenell, gay conservatives & the GOP

in 2004, in the decision that would (indirectly) launch my blogging career, Log Cabin passed up an opportunity that Richard Grenell yesterday seized with relish–the chance to articulate the role for gay conservatives within a party whose entire agenda we do not support.

By failing to endorse George W. Bush (and making a spectacle of their non-endorsement), they failed to show their commitment to the broad principles of the GOP, particularly those relating to national security.  The organization’s leaders could have said although we disagree with President Bush on the Federal Marriage Amendment, we support his leadership in the War on Terror and share Ronald Reagan’s view that “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

“Like many voters,” Grenell wrote yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, “I rarely agree with a candidate’s every position. I can support Mr. Romney for president but not agree with all of his stated policies.”  In 2004, Log Cabin could have well served gay conservatives by offering a similarly succinct statement supporting the reelection of George W. Bush.  In so doing, they would have made it a lot easier for skeptical (and non-doctrinaire) social conservatives to help us find welcome within the party’s ranks.

The good news is that the current executive director of Log Cabin, R. Clarke Cooper, (as did his immediate past predecessor) appears to share that view.  His rhetoric (alas!) may from time to time ape that of the gay left, but his commitment does seem to be finding a place for gay Republicans in the GOP.  (He has even used to his Facebook page to praise the man his organization once maligned — George W. Bush.)

It’s nice to see Log Cabin on the same page with Richard Grenell who, despite the Romney campaign’s awkward handling of his appointment, has shown a strong commitment to an imperfect GOP.  And has given greater voice to a notion we have been pushing at GayPatriot at least since Bruce launched the blog — and that I have promoting since I first joined Log Cabin in 1995.

Big Labor pouring money down drain in Wisconsin?

“The Left, labor, Democrats, which planned to embarrass” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Mike Allen of Politico on MSNBC this morning (as quoted by Jim Geraghty), “instead have made him a national figure with a very bright future,”  adding “It was money poured down the drain by Democrats and the Left in a presidential election year.”

Indeed.

Wonder if we’ll ever see a tally of the total amount of money the various and sundry public employee unions poured into the Badger State, first to lobby the legislature and organize rallies against Walker’s reforms, then to launch petition drives to recall the state Senators targeted for replacement in 2011, to do the same this year to recall Walker, his Lieutenant Governor and another batch of state Senators, then to campaign for their chosen candidate in this month’s primary and now to campaign against the governor himself in the actual recall election upcoming.

Money spent in those endeavors is money they won’t be able to spend to help hold the Wisconsin Senate seat for the Democrats or to help in other political contests this year.

Meanwhile, in attempting to demonize and destroy Mr. Walker, the unions have made that reformer a Republican hero.  As Ann Althouse writes:

The recall has put Walker in the position where he must advertise and promote himself, which might have been awkward before — and it was never his thing. TV viewers are getting barraged with Walker ads — and almost nothing for his cash-strapped opponent, and we’re tolerating it because he was forced into having to defend himself. What a nice opportunity for him!

Via Instapundit.

UPDATE:   “The bigger problem for unions”, writes 2010 CPAC Blogger of the Year, Ed Morrissey, “is the display of impotence“:

They have poured millions of dollars into Wisconsin, pushed people into rallies and protests, and wasted valuable man-hours organizing for recall elections and a special election for the state Supreme Court, only to come up empty thus far.  Until now, people feared the impact of unions in elections, and in special elections such as these even more, as they are more easily mastered by superior organization.  However, Walker supporters cast more ballots in the recall primaries than the combined votes of the top two Democrats, just as they did in the race that pitted Supreme Court Justice David Prosser against Joanne Kloppenburg, and in almost every recall race thus far.

Even though Obama flipped on gay marriage, Richard Grenell remains faithful to Mitt Romney’s White House bid

When I first posted on Richard Grenell’s stepping down from the Romney campaign, I wrote that it was

. . . absurd to think that, as one social conservative quoted in Rubin’s piece suggests, that Grenell might “decamp from Romney to Obama” should that latter come out in favor of federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Does he really think gay people are so shallow that we’d back a candidate just because he has a better record on gay issues even when we disagree with him on nearly every other issue?

That social conservative, a Mr. Matthew J. Franck, reports Jennifer Rubin, had written:

Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?

Well, Mr. Obama didn’t wait until the Democratic National Convention. And in his appeal earlier this month for gay campaign cash, the Democrat did just what Mr. Franck imagined he might do.

And Mr. Grenell? Well, the headline for CNN’s report on his editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal says it all, Former Romney spox Grenell: Don’t vote on gay marriage:

He said that Romney’s position on same-sex marriage – which Grenell disagrees with – was not enough to write him off as a candidate.

“Like many voters, I rarely agree with a candidate’s every position,” Grenell wrote. “I can support Mr. Romney for president but not agree with all of his stated policies. (more…)

Back in 1978, Harvey Milk celebrated Gay Freedom Day

Earlier this week at the LA Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald blogged about Tuesday’s celebration of “Harvey Milk Day in honor of the slain San Francisco supervisor who was one of the first gay elected officials in the United States”:

Milk was assassinated by former San Francisco supervisor Dan White in 1978. A few months before his death, he gave a stirring speech at the Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco.

Emphasis added.  Gay Freedom Day?  Freedom?  You mean, back then the watchword wasn’t equality?  Wonder when it changed — and why.

Freedom means the state leaves us alone to live our lives as we choose.  All too often, equality, under its current connotation, means the state attempts to equalize the results.  Modern conservatives much prefer the former notion.

Perhaps, the early gay movement had more in common with the conservative movement than today’s gay activists care to acknowledge.