In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.”  I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.

Commenter Eddie Swaim observed:

While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.

Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.

I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012.  Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.  For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below.  Hawkins writes that:

1) Most liberals are hateful people.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.

4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.

Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation.  There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.

Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention.  The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.  True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article.  Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language.  Read the comments there and see for yourself.

Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective.  The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.

in response to an Advocate piece contending that “Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton uses homophobic term to describe President Obama’s foreign policy“, Richard Grenell wrote a letter to the Advocate, taking issue with their assessment.  As the magazine has yet to publish his letter, we are posting it here:

The Advocate’s Michelle Garcia’s latest piece fails to mention that John Bolton has been a consistent defender of gay rights, gay marriage and a critic of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell before it was overturned, Garcia also fails to show how Bolton’s comment describing President Obama as a weak leader is in anyway homophobic.

I also find it ironic that while The Advocate has consistently refused to report on John Bolton’s early support for Log Cabin Republicans and gay rights, they jump to write a phony and purposefully deceptive piece about him – all because he is a Republican. Calling a conservative friend of our community homophobic is a self-inflicted wound. Are Advocate writers so in the tank for the Democrats that they attack a supporter of gay rights just because he’s not a Democrat? Garcia’s story is the perfect example of how the old gay guard and its magazine of choice is out of touch with gay Americans today. Yesterday’s warriors of acceptance have morphed into today’s liberal intolerants. This is the exact faux outrage that makes The Advocate the magazine of your old gay uncle. It isn’t a serious place for news or information.

Please note that I merely cut and pasted the letter without adding — or altering a word.

When it comes to gay people in the Mormon faith — or in evangelical denominations — you can count on our friends in the media to detail the oppression they suffer even if the only evidence of said oppression is the narrative the journalists provide.

Our friend Sonicfrog caught the Advocate peddling this very narrative in the story of the death of a Gay Mormon man.  The headline contends that his suicide “points up tensions“, but the tensions they write about come not from the details of the man’s life, but from the commentary of “some”:

As friends mourn the death of Chris Wayne Beers, a gay man and former Mormon missionary and church employee who took his own life Sunday, some are noting tensions between LGBT people and the church, which opposes gay relationships.

The only person quoted in the Advocate’s piece didn’t even know Beers: “While struggles with his faith may not have been the direct reason he took his own life,” this man said, “I’m hard pressed to imagine that there isn’t an indirect cause, at least. . . .” This leads Sonic to quip with a question, “Project much?”

There is no indication in the article that he was very devout, or that his family had dis-owned him. The main interview of the article didn’t even know the guy. Mitch Mayne does not give any indication of knowing any of the details of this mans life.

Read the whole thing.  My blogging pal notes further that on Beers’s “memorial page, there is a reference to the fact that his own brother Jeff had also passed away. That could be just as much or more of a weight on Mr Beers than the conflict between church and being gay.” (more…)

It seems for some gay activists, everything is political.  Mark, one of our readers, alerted me to a story about which he, while regularly disagreeing with yours truly, offers commentary that I find spot-on:  “stunts like this make gay people look like idiots”.  Well, fortunately, most Americans (or so we hope) won’t judge all gay people by the juvenile antics of this one man who wallows in his (perceived) victimhood:

A gay man was excused from jury duty in New York last week because he said that discrimination against gays makes him a second-class citizen and therefore he couldn’t be impartial.

Jonathan D. Lovitz, an actor, model, and singer who will be on Logo’s upcoming show Setup Squad, wrote on his Facebook page, “I raised my hand and said, ‘Since I can’t get married or adopt a child in the state of New York, I can’t possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second class citizen in the eyes of the justice system.’”

And instead of criticizing the man for this self-righteous stunt, the Advocate reports that some activists are encouraging “others to use the strategy”.   Such individuals have so internalized the victim mentality that they define themselves as second-class citizens.  Wonder why they need convince themselves of such status.

This is not to say that things are perfect for gay Americans, but the notion that we’re second-class citizens suggests we lack the fundamental rights and privileges associated with citizens, many denied African-Americans in certain states until federal legislation in the mid-1960s overturned discriminatory laws and practices. (more…)

I had wanted to take some time off from commenting on The Campaign That Will Never End, but your latest screed criticizing retired General Colin Powell demands a response. While I share your disappointment in General Powell’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President, your remarks in expressing such are truly beyond the pale:

If General Powell is not concerned about the consequences of repealing the law, he cannot be described as a conservative or even the credible leader of the military that he used to be. If Powell does not favor all of these consequences, why has he announced his intent to vote for Senator Obama, who has promised to push for repeal of the 1993 law? Either way, General Powell is letting down the men and women of our military.

(more…)

Here’s something to chew on.

I try to use a different spelling of my name when I subscribe to certain periodicals so as to better determine who sells my name to what.  Well, while I sometimes forget which name I used where, I do know the abbreviation I used on my soon-to-lapse Advocate subscription.

That very abbreviation appears on fund-raising solicitations I have received from pro-abortion groups as well as Democratic candidates.  Yep, Ms. Hillary solicited me sometime in the past year.

Today, that abbreviation appeared on an invitation to subscribe to the New York Times.  Not sure what to make of this, but thought to put it out there to see if y’all had any thoughts.

Guess they think there’a market for their increasingly biased product in gay circles.

I haven’t really had the chance to follow the hearings conducted by the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel concerning the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. From the video clips I’ve seen on You Tube and press reports (e.g. this National Review column), it appears that I’ve been missing some dramatic political theater. I guess part of the reason I haven’t been following this more closely is that the status of DADT will not change this election year and the same tired arguments from the pro-ban side can be overly tedious. I suppose hearings like this one though do help lay the groundwork for eventual repeal, which I hope happens soon. Yet I read today’s column by Dana Milbank and think he makes a good point: pro-ban advocates like Elaine Donnelly hurt their cause more and more each time they open their mouths. From what Milbank and others report, along with Donnelly’s own testimony, I’m somewhat encouraged that the policy’s days are numbered. While Donnelly’s performance yesterday enraged folks like disabled Marine veteran Eric Alva, who opposes the ban, it also helped in “torpedoing her own ship”. I do not know Alva personally but was privileged to meet him at a SLDN event last year. My impression of him is that he is a good man who has sacrificed a lot in service to our country. Donnelly’s inability to show discretion and tact in defending her position was unwise and insulting to veterans like Alva, which perhaps in the long-run will help in repealing this stupid ban.

Perhaps most interesting to me though from Milbank’s column is this exchange between Donnelly and a Republican Congressman, who was very unimpressed with her shoddy performance:

Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) pointed a finger at [retired Navy Capt. Joan] Darrah and glared at Donnelly. “Would you please tell me, Miss Donnelly, why I should give one twit about this woman’s sexual orientation, when it didn’t interfere one bit with her service?”

Donnelly said something about “forced intimacy.”

Shays cut her off. “You’re saying she has no right to serve her country because she happens to have a different sexual orientation than you.” […]

Shays, his voice rising with Yankee indignation, continued to lecture Donnelly: “I think the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is unpatriotic. I think it’s counterproductive. In fact, I think it is absolutely cruel.”

Donnelly said something about her respect for the service of gay veterans. “How do you respect their service?” Shays demanded. “You want them out.”

Donnelly seemed to have unified the lawmakers — against her. The next questioner was Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy vice admiral. “I couldn’t ask it better than you did,” he told Shays. (Washington Post)

Not bad Congressman, not bad at all.

UPDATE: Pepe Johnson from Integrity in Service has an interesting post composed of notes he took of the hearings.

— John (Average Gay Joe)

In a bipartisan move yesterday, the U.S. Senate “approve[d] a global AIDS relief bill that includes language calling for the repeal of a law that bans foreign visitors and immigrants with HIV from entering the U.S.”, reports The Washington Blade. The House is expected to likewise pass this bill shortly, which President Bush has promised to sign into law. This in itself is newsworthy, but I was most intrigued by the closing paragraph of the Blade’s article:

Congress enacted the HIV visitor and immigrant ban into law in 1993 at a time when supporters of the ban argued that foreign visitors and immigrants with HIV would flock to the U.S. to seek treatment for AIDS, overloading U.S. health facilities. President Bill Clinton expressed opposition to the ban but chose to sign the bill enacting the ban, which was approved by the then Democratic-controlled Congress, drawing criticism from gay and AIDS activists.

A “Democratic-controlled Congress” passed this ban while a Democrat president signed it into law. For all the talk I hear from the Left about how gay-friendly Bill Clinton was as president, with George W. Bush being the epitome of all that is evil, we once again see that the rhetoric just doesn’t add up. This is not to say that Clinton wasn’t gay-friendly at times or that Bush hasn’t been anti-gay at times as well, and vice versa, but this does put things a bit more into perspective. Let’s see, Clinton signed into law DADT, DOMA, and this HIV travel ban that activists have decried. Given the complete lack of spine and principles the man demonstrated while in office, why exactly should gays consider the former president to be a hero? Seems to me that he was all talk and very little action, well, except for all the wrong actions I guess you could say.

— John (Average Gay Joe)

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer…

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.” (The Guardian)

One wonders if this fellow went to Andover? On the one hand I would dearly love such a ‘trial’ to expose schmucks like Hansen and the drivel they peddle, but on the other I have to wonder just how much of a kangaroo court this whole process would really be. Eh, if dissension constitutes a ‘war crime’ then perhaps we’ll get to put these folks on trial one day. I’m thinking fraud for starters…

–John (Average Gay Joe)

Last night, when attempting to tidy up my place and get rid of the clutter, I came across a number of magazines I had saved, either because I hadn’t yet gotten around to reading them or because they had something which might be blog-worthy. When I caught sight of the cover of the November 20, 2007 Advocate, featuring their list of the year’s “coolest straight people,” I realized why I saved the periodical.

While the cover featured the very cool and amazingly gifted Cate Blanchett, it listed three only three others, all with politics considerably left-of-center, Elizabeth Edwards, Frank Rich and Arianna Huffington. Interesting they would feature such political figures while neglecting (on the cover) some of the cultural “icons” they included inside.

Before even opening the magazine, I gathered that to be a “cool” straight person to the Advocate’s editors, you had to hold left-of-center political views. I was certain they would include no conservatives on that list.

So, I opened the magazine. The list wasn’t very long. Just Cate, Arianna, Frank, Elizabeth, the fetching Phillippe Cousteau, Aaron Toleos and a rapper called Common. Hmmm. . . .  Seven people on the list and three from the political left . . . . and two of those (Huffington & Rich) known for misrepresentations of Republicans.

Now that I’ve confirmed my hypothesis, time to recycle the magazine.

The Democratic former governor of New Jersey and Advocate cover boy Jim McGreevey is back in the news. A judge yesterday dismissed his ex-wife’s “claim of emotional distress.” Meanwhile, Jamie Kirchik reminds us that this Democrat’s scandal “wasn’t just about sex.”

McGreevey wasn’t just engaged in extramarital trysts with men, he was also putting them on the state payroll. While Jamie acknowledges the “eagerness of gays to champion the [ex-]Governor of the Garden State,” given the “paucity of openly gay people in public affairs,” he finds:

McGreevey inadvertently hurt the cause of gay civil rights as much as any crusading, socially conservative political activist could have hoped to do. He fed the stereotype that gays are untrustworthy and self-absorbed, and that homosexuality is a personal weakness

Exactly. And yet the Advocate put him on its cover.

In a headline on another cover, that “national gay & lesbian news magzine” accused an open lesbian of “copping out” because Mary Cheney didn’t say what they wanted her to say in her memoir, Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life.

Hmm, here we have a lesbian comfortable in her sexuality, faithful to her partner and close to her family, a woman who is anything but self-absorbed, even having the courage to come out in conservative circles and the Advocate dismisses her writing. Guess it must be that parenthetical letter after her name. That (R) seems to make one anathema to gay activists and journalists while that (D) excuses them of all wrongdoing.

If we really want to promote a positive image of gay men and lesbians in American society, gay leaders as well as our advocates in the media would be condemning the conduct of men like Jim McGreevey and wishing more people like Mary Cheney would be open about their sexuality.

A few days ago, when I opened the latest issue of The Advocate, I was delighted to see a letter from Editor-in-Chief Anne Stockwell, headlined, “Our New Hero . . . Arnold?” I had assumed it would be a balanced piece, noting that despite Governor Schwarenegger’s veto of gay marriage, he had compiled a pretty decent record on issues, signing a number of bills (many endorsed by the left-leaning gay advocacy group, Equality California) designed to benefit gay people.

In her piece, however, Ms. Stockwell mentions none of those bills, nor even references the Governor’s strong support for the state’s landmark domestic partnership program.

Instead, seething with contempt for the President of the United States, she faults the Bush Administration for holding that the new federal energy law prevents states from enacting their own fuel-efficiency regulations. And she commends the Golden State’s Republican governor for daring to defy this order. Commending him not for his record on gay issues, but for standing up to the Bush Administration. On a non-gay issue.

For this, Stockwell writes, “On this issue, at this moment, it behooves us to kiss and make up with Arnold.” Making up with Arnold because he’s defying George W. Bush.

I guess we know what’s really important to this magazine which styles itself as a voice of the gay and lesbian community.

And it’s not just conservatives taking note of the Advocate‘s agenda. A liberal reader wrote in*:

All these years of reading The Advocate, I assumed it was a magazine devoted to gay and lesbian issues. Now you seem to indicate that the main focus is to be the environment?? Get real!!!

Actually, the main focus (at least of the opinion writers)for the past few years, has been criticizing the Bush Administration and Republicans while heralding those in the entertain industry who also engage in Bush-bashing. I mean, Bill Maher as their 2006 Man of the Year, a year when unheralded activists in Arizona actually accomplished something to benefit gay people (defeating a state initiative banning gay marriage and civil unions). George Clooney as their cover boy?

Both men are known for their vitriolic anti-Bush comments, rhetoric similar to the language of Ms. Stockwell’s post.
(more…)

Okay, so for some of you this is snooze-city, so I’ll put the jump pretty high on this one. But I’ve received quite a bit of passionate mail on the subject, and those who have commented seemed pretty excited, so on to another phase of this saga:

(more…)

Friends, please forgive my tardiness in writing further about NGLCC’s newly-ended relationship with Wal-Mart. My original post is here. I left on vacation the day after I posted, and to be honest, I didn’t really expect Justin Nelson, co-founder and president of the organization to write back. Well, to his credit, he did write back, and his response is here:

Nick,

Much appreciation for your note about NGLCC and Wal-Mart. I would just open with a statement that it would be easy to work with companies that are 100 percent on our issues 100 percent of the time. Unfortunately, if that were the case, the universe of companies with whom we work would get awfully small awfully quick and progress on our issues would not progress. As a business advocacy organization – and I would offer as any organization that represents all or part of the LGBT segment — it is our responsibility to continually push corporations to do better, to respect their LGBT employees, customers and of course, suppliers. We have had much success in this arena – millions of dollars are now being spent with companies that are LGBT owned as part of corporate supplier diversity programs that was not previously the case. By this I mean that LGBT owned companies are now part of many corporate diverse supply chains, much as ethnic minorities, women owned businesses, service disabled veterans and other diverse groups. This is all good news for the community.

Our partnership with Wal-Mart was an effort to bring their company up to speed with regard to their corporate practices and how they affect our community. A year later, admittedly, reviews are mixed. They are working on benefits for their LGBT employees, although not quickly enough. There are LGBT owned companies that are now major suppliers to Wal-Mart, although not enough. When we made our agreement it was based on what I considered to be a series of benchmarks that needed to be met throughout the course of the last year for the partnership to be extended. Simply put, they didn’t meet them, and they did not pay their corporate membership dues – both of which we felt were grounds for not renewing membership.

It is my job to ensure opportunities for LGBT companies to compete in the marketplace, make connections to grow their businesses and constantly think about how more dollars can be spent with our community enterprises. I will not always be right, but rest assured, I will always be right in my reasons for pursuing a partnership, pushing companies that need to be pushed and doing everything I and the NGLCC can do to adequately educate decision makers about our community.

Again, I appreciate your note. As a fellow westerner (I was born and raised in Wyoming and LOVE Colorado), I am pleased to know of your interest in what we are doing and the work you do to educate our community about issues of importance.

Warm regards,

Justin

As gracious and open-minded as he was to engage (I did let him know I’d be publishing his responses), his response left me with more questions. Here’s what I wrote back:
(more…)

I’m not ready to impugn the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce for their recent decision to scuttle relations with Wal-Mart, the hugely successful American company the Left can’t help but to hate. I’m not ready to suggest that perhaps the NGLCC is just another far-Left organization disguised as a gay advocacy group.

I’ll wait to see what I get in reply to the letter I just wrote to co-founder Justin Nelson:

Subject: Wal-Mart

Mr Nelson:

Recently your organization published a press release in which you announce your “membership with Wal-Mart that will not be renewed.”

Last August, you issued a press release praising Wal-Mart for, among other things, its “ongoing commitment to advancing diversity among all of its associate, supplier and customer bases”, and portend the inclusion of the corporation as you work together toward “providing a diverse workplace and creating mutually beneficial relationships with the LGBT and LGBT-friendly business community.”

In fact, you personally are quoted in the release as saying: “We are honored to have Wal-Mart’s support of the NGLCC. Our partnership will not only provide more opportunities for the NGLCC, but the business community as a whole.”

I know you take seriously the responsibility to our community that goes along with your position, and that you do not make these decisions casually. As a member of the gay community, I trust that your group is serious about those with whom it associates and wouldn’t engage with a corporation (especially one as large and transparent as Wal-Mart) without first ensuring its gay-friendly bona-fides. Your recent abrupt decision, therefore leaves many questions:

After less than a year, have you uncovered something about Wal-Mart that you didn’t know last August when you had such praise for the company?
Has Wal-Mart undertaken a drastic reversal of its diversity program?
What has Wal-Mart done differently in the past 10 months that has changed your mind about their commitment to the gay and lesbian community?

I, as well as the readers of the blog for which I write would be interested in knowing the answers to these questions, and look forward to your response.

All the best,
Nick, ColoradoPatriot

I’ll keep you informed as to what I hear back.

Well, we’ve made the Advocate and it seems their reporters liked Bruce’s responses better than mine as they quoted his replies to all of the questions, publishing my words only in reply to the last question. Well, that makes sense. The blog is GayPatriot, not GayPatriotWest. 🙂

We’re featured in the February 27, 2007, edition of the magazine on Page 18, in the “Meet the Bloggers” column. I am, as of yet, unable to find a link online.

If I did not blog on gay topics, I would long since have let my subscription to the gay magazine, the Advocate, lapse. The periodical regularly provides biased coverage of the news, with regular misrepresentations of Republicans and conservatives. Its latest issue, announcing TV personality Bill Maher as it’s “Person of the Year,” is just another example of its narrow focus.

Were it not for Bill Maher’s left-wing politics as well as regular attacks on conservatives, the Advocate would certainly not have chosen to honor him. This periodical regularly heralds left-of-center media figures even when they have done little to make gay lives better.

If Bill Maher did not offer up the politics Hollywood wants to promote, he would long since have vanished from the scene. He’s more pretentious than funny and offers little (if any) original thought. Far from being politically incorrect, he just mouths whatever slogans he feels will endear him to producers and other entertainment industry bigwigs. Kind of like Madonna (the pop-star not the mother of Jesus) without the vocal talent.

This year, there are clear candidates for people of the year, individuals who have not been in the media spotlight, but who have done a good deal for gay people. Last month, for the first time since states have been voting on referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (and otherwise limiting the types of relationships states may recognize), voters in one state — Arizona — defeated one of these pernicious proposals. At the same time, while similar referenda passed in other states, they saw the margin of victory greatly reduced (from those in states which had voted on marriage in previous years).

It seems there’s been a shift in the debate on gay marriage. Perhaps, gay organizations have learned from their past campaigns and adjusted their rhetoric to better influence Americans. Whatever the case, those who organized against the Arizona referendum succeeded in improving the lives of gay people by blocking an initiative which would have banned recognition of our unions. As they proved that passage of these referenda is not a given, they provided a model for activists in other states to follow.

I don’t know who these people are — and would dare say their politics are (by and large) not my own. But, those activists did do something more than just pretend to be courageous while spouting politically correct views.

So, here’s to the real people of the year (as far as the gay world is concerned) — those who worked successfully to defeat the Arizona referendum. It’s too bad our media outlets are more obsessed with self-important celebrities than they are with those making real accomplishments outside our nation’s entertainment centers.

If it weren’t for this blog, I would long since have cancelled my subscription to The Advocate. I have found its reporting increasingly biased with its coverage of conservatives frequently dishonest. The magazine doesn’t have a single conservative columnist (though it has from time to time included conservative views on its website).

In its December 7, 2004 symposium on the previous month’s elections, it failed to include a single person who had supported the winner in the presidential contest despite the fact that just under one in four gay men and lesbians voted for George W. Bush.

That said, it often provides news of interest to gay people and occasionally has interesting features. Its left-wing rants often provide material for my posts. And sometimes it offers food for thought. In the latest issue, for example, its editorial “Is lying about HIV a crime?” considers an issue particularly important to our community.

The editors believe that prosecuting a sexually promiscuous Australian man “who told partners he was HIV-negative when he knew he wasn’t,” persuading some to “have unprotected sex with him . . ., would set a perilous precedent.” They believe:

it’s wrong to fabricate a story about your HIV status, much less to knowingly expose people to the virus. But it’s also wrong to criminalize people for doing either.

I agree with their contention that “Protecting yourself from HIV is a matter of personal responsibility,” but I’m not sure I share their conclusion.

I have yet to meet a gay man who doesn’t know the risks of unprotected intercourse. And yet some continue to “play unsafe” even with partners about whose status they are uncertain. While they may be taking great risks with their health, it is their responsibility to take precautions, not the government’s.

(more…)

Here’s yet another reason I’m going to let my Advocate subscription expire (again…. yeah, I’m such a fool). 

The subject of their news alert was:  Poor loser challenges lesbian primary win in Alabama.   Honestly, the first question that popped into my mind was “when did Al Gore campaign against a lesbian in Alabama??”

I was wrong…

The mother-in-law of a defeated legislative candidate challenged the outcome of a Democratic runoff election, claiming that the winner timed the filing of a campaign finance report to keep voters from learning she was supported by a pro-gay campaign fund. Retired beautician Mattie Childress asked the Democratic Party to review Patricia Todd’s slim victory over Gaynell Hendricks, who is married to Childress’s son.

Todd, who would be the first openly gay member of the Alabama legislature if elected, did not immediately return a telephone message Monday seeking comment. The challenge was filed late Thursday.

Todd led Hendricks by 59 votes in the July 18 Democratic runoff for house district 54, which includes much of Birmingham. Winning the runoff was tantamount to election since no Republican ran for the seat.

Now what prompted the editorial judgment of the Almighty Advocate to declare Hendricks a “poor loser.”  Perhaps because Ms. Hendricks isn’t the Advocate’s candidate of choice?  Hmmm, the MadLibDemLeft would never have a double standard would they?

I mean AlGore lost Florida by close to 400 votes (over 10,000 if CBS hadn’t jumped the gun in 2000) and he wasn’t a sore loser to the Advocate?  For crying out loud, Gore caused a near Consitutional Crisis because of his sore loserism!

But a 59-vote margin should go uncontested??  Especially given some serious allegations of campaign finance fraud that at the least should be investigated.

In the election challenge, Childress claimed that the release of a campaign finance report by Todd was timed to prevent voters from knowing that Todd received a $25,000 contribution from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Voters also didn’t know that Todd made payments of $12,750 to two primary opponents who endorsed her, according to the challenge.

Now I’m all for more gays and lesbians getting elected to office, but not through cuteness, trickery and concealing campaign finance documents.  In fact, there is probably a higher standard for gay and lesbian public officials that was similar to women in the 1970s, for example.

It will be interesting to see how this ends up.  For now, it is another item for the Advocate Watch.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)