Gay Patriot Header Image

On economic liberty & social liberals’ anti-Republican narrative

Last week, our reader Chris H offered a comment which goes to the heart of the Republican dilemma among gays — and social liberals, particularly those who live in what current Breitbart blogger John Nolte dubbed the “blue islands” which dot our nation’s increasingly “red” landscape:

I had an interesting experience this weekend. I was at a BBQ this and one of my friends was complaining about how he is having to pay rent on a place where he’s trying to start a new business. However, he’s stuck in red tape hell because the city of West Hollywood, the Health Department and Alcoholic Beverage Control can’t agree on what to classify his business as. So.. he waits and waits. He said he could be out 45k before he even opens his doors.

This is the same friend that outwardly expresses disgust at Republicans and Conservatives.

I reminded him it’s not Republicans and Conservatives that support these kinds of crazy regulations.

He sheepishly had to concede.

My gay friends sure hate those Republicans“, Chris offered in the thread following another post, “but when I discuss Liberterian/Republican concepts with out identifying them as ‘Republican’ I generally get agreement.”

Last year, I endorsed Mito Aviles for West Hollywood City Council even though that Democrat (who had hanged Sarah Palin in effigy) because he was aghast at the burdens local regulation placed on small business.

If these folks could get over their animus against Republicans, voting based on the parties’ relative stands on economic liberty rather than on the politically correct notions of partisan ideology, we’d see a surge in support that could make the 2012 election for the GOP what 1932 was for the Democrats.

More on this anon.

As he dubs notion of liberal media bias a “sham”, is Dan Rather offering further proof of his own bias against conservatives?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:27 pm - May 31, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias,Misrepresenting the Right,Random Thoughts

In his Daily Caller piece on Dan Rather’s Wednesday appearance on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”, Jeff Poor reports that “one-time CBS “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather said that allegations that the mainstream media reports news from a liberal perspective have been greatly overstated.”

Poor includes this excerpt from Rather’s remarks on the Comedy Central program:

“It hasn’t been my experience,” [Rather] replied. “Most journalists I grew up with, most journalists I worked with and practiced with were trying to be honest brokers of information. Now, what sometimes got you a reputation of liberal, journalists generally form an apprenticeship covering the police beat at midnight, after midnight, on Saturday night, the charity hospital. Journalists, the best of then, do see a Dickensian side of society that most people don’t see. So when they try to call attention to that, people who don’t like it say, ‘Oh, you’re a liberal.’”

Via Hot Air Headlines.

Dan Rather seems to be assuming that a concern for the less fortunate makes one appear to be liberal?  What then does he make of repeated reports showing conservatives more generous in supporting charities with their own money than are liberals with theirs?

And please note that I title this post with a question and include it in the Random Thoughts category.

NB:  Tweaked the post a tad.

Yahoo! leads news with former Carter aide’s musings on contents of Mitt Romney’s iPad

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:34 pm - May 31, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Media Bias

While the conservative blogosphere is abuzz about how Mitt Romney’s team outorganized the Obama campaign’s attempt to trash the presumptive Republican nominee’s Massachusetts record and the candidate’s press conference outside Solyndra, Yahoo! chooses to lead their news with the speculations of a former Carter administration official.

Walter Shapiro, according to his USA Today biography, “served in the Carter administration as a presidential speechwriter (1979) and as press secretary (1977-78) to Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall . . . [and also] sought the Democratic nomination for a U.S. House seat . . . .” Key Wiki reports that he “was an identified member of JournoList – an email group of approximately 400 “progressive” and socialist journalists, academics and “new media” activists.”

Has Yahoo! ever led with the speculations of a former Reagan Administration official who has blogged at RedState about Obama’s musings in his Blackberry? (more…)

Even the Huffington Post notes Obama’s anti-Bush obsession

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:37 pm - May 31, 2012.
Filed under: Blame Republicans first,Bush-hatred

Their image promoting the unveiling of the White House portrait of the immediate past President of the United States:

Did First Circuit Use 10th Amendment to Strike Down Portions of the Defense of Marriage Act?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:36 pm - May 31, 2012.
Filed under: Constitutional Issues,Gay Marriage

At first blush, the First Circuit ruling overturning portions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), those denying “federal benefits to married gay couples”, appears to be on shaky legal ground:  “In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.

There is no constitutional right to those privileges.

That said, there is the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Later in the AP article cited above, we read:

The court, the first federal appeals panel to deem the benefits section of the law unconstitutional, agreed with a lower level judge who ruled in 2010 that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

. . . .

“One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage,” Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court. “Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.

Emphasis added.  Now, while I might quibble with Judge Boudin’s language, he said, “legalize” when he clearly meant “recognize”, he does seem to be on solid Tenth Amendment grounds here.

The court points out that,” observes Ed Morrissey helping get a the point about the judge’s language, “contra some hysteria among activists, DOMA does not invalidate marriages, but it gives states leeway to disregard marriages performed in other states, and puts the federal government in the position of denying the validity of such marriages”.   Indeed.  If a state “disregards” a marriage, they just don’t grant it privileges, but it still remains valid — or should — in the eyes of those who define themselves as married.

Now to check Volokh for some sound legal analysis.  UPDATE:  Dale Carpenter has a short post on the decision, observing(more…)

Once again, a plea for civility in the comments

My most recent post on the Grenell matter should have been an occasion for our readers to consider yet again the most unreported story in the gay media  — and indeed a social phenomenon that only receives passing notice even in the conservative press, that of the of strong intolerance among certain liberals toward people like us, gay conservatives.

Indeed, there are liberal hate sites whose bitter, negative bloggers devote the better part of their time to leveling personal attacks on conservatives, reserving a particular venom for right-of-center gays who do not toe the “equality” party line.

Given how regularly these sites misrepresented my arguments, I haven’t checked them since George W. Bush was president.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of our readers, on both side of the political aisle, have stooped to the level of the hate bloggers in leveling personal attacks on others who have chimed in, offering opposing points of view.  In recent days, I have been checking the comments section less and less frequently.  And when I do, it often feels foreign to me as if it’s part of the blog entirely independent of its bloggers.

So, once again, I ask, readers, please keep the comments civil.  You diminish the quality of your own arguments, making your case far less compelling, when you make assumptions about or level ad hominem attacks against your ideological adversaries.

And all this in a post about the hateful, mean-spirited attacks a prominent gay conservative received.  Those on the left help make my point while those on the right diminish theirs.

Has CNN devoted more time to Donald Trump . . .

. . . and his endorsement of Mitt Romney than the “news” network has to the failure of the Senate Democrats to pass a budget in over three years?

UPDATE:  Seems I’m not the only one noting the network’s obsession with Mr. Trump.   From Jennifer Rubin:

Peter Wehner blasts CNN. “There are dozens of significant and complicated topics that CNN could explore with care. But it has decided to hyper-focus on Donald Trump and the birther issue. That’s bad enough. But what makes it worse is when some in the media then saddle up on their high horses and lament that lack of seriousness in American politics. They pretend what they most want is a sophisticated and elevated conversation about the weightiest issues facing our nation and the world. They deride politicians for focusing on trivialities, even as they are the ones putting the spotlight on the trivialities and demanding politicians address them.”