Perhaps, the most predictable thing about Republican California state Sen. Roy Ashburn, arrested last week in Sacramento for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), confirming yesterday that he is gay is the chorus of left-wing gay activists telling us that closeted gay politicians “vote against LBGT rights to squash rumors about their sexual orientation.“

Granted there is some truth to this notion, but when you read the list of legislative proposals these activists describe as “rights,” you find the better part of them are not rights as the Founders defined them, but merely government regulations defining sexual orientation as a protected class.  Certainly these activists are hoping that once out of the closet, Senator Ashburn will adopt their agenda hook, line and sinker lest he be branded self-hating.  And soon when he votes their way and changes his party registration, they’ll be feting him for his courage.

Well, he would truly be courageous if once coming out, he said, “Yeah, I was short-sighted on some issues, but I still believe in freedom, so don’t support increasing the scope of state authority to ensure that no one, nowhere, no how treats a gay person in less than a politically correct manner.”

That said, I do hope he’ll change his views of the state’s domestic partnership program (he once opposed even that) and help lobby California Republican Representatives in Congress to join their colleagues in voting to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  But, there’s really not much else the government should be doing for gays.  It should leave us alone, treat us as individuals (and not members of a particular class) before the law, neither burdened nor benefited because of our difference from the social norm.

Government should leave us to address our problems on our own and in the communities to which we belong and which we’ve chosen.

All that said, my heart goes out to Roy Ashburn the man–and to his family.  It is unfortunate that he should have his private life made public.  But, then again, he should have known better than to drive a car after drinking to excess.

Perhaps though his coming out will help change attitudes toward gay people, particularly among the social conservatives who make up a large portion of his jurisdiction.  It is attitudes we still need to change not laws we need to enact.

In his piece on the HomoCon Tipping Point, Bruce writes

. . . formerly-conservative gay blogger Andrew Sullivan – never one to miss a chance to hammer the alleged intolerance of American conservatives – finally weighed in. Sullivan was completely silent about Sorba on Friday.  And Saturday.  But two days later, when he found a new angle, Sullivan couldn’t help himself.  The story was too juicy for even him to ignore and he joined the blogosphere left-wing media bandwagon since he knew the way the winds were blowing.  Nevertheless, Sullivan labeled Sorba “a glimpse into the future of Republicanism.”

Once again, to Andrew, I ask, “Show me the evidence.”  How did he reach this conclusion?  Attended any meetings of Republicans lately?  Walked any precincts for Republican candidates?  Interviewed Republican candidates?

Perhaps, instead of lambasting the GOP for its supposed intolerance of gay people, he should step back and realize his part in getting us to the tipping point.  No matter how obsessed he has become today with Sarah Palin’s womb and an imaginary Republican Party, his courage–and his outspokenness–in the 1990s made it easier for guys like Bruce and me to come out in Republican and conservative circles in the mid-1990s and today.

Andrew Sullivan was the first gay openly man to publicly challenge the left-wing gay orthodoxy from a very prominent platform.  He set an example; when we debated coming out as gay to our fellow conservatives or as conservative to our fellow gays, we knew we were not alone.  As the pioneer (to to speak), Sullivan took a lot of flak reserved for such individuals.  By the time we came out, a gay conservative was no long such a novel thing; fewer defenders of the orthodoxy reacted as vehemently as they did when Andrew first challenged their statist shibboleths. (more…)

For as long as I’ve been blogging, longer even, for as long as I’ve been open about being a gay Republican, I’ve had left-wingers lecture me on how the GOP is controlled by religious zealots eager to do away with our freedom and create what some might call a “Christianist” state.  When I tell such folk that I’ve been involved not just in the GOP as an openly gay man, but have also participated in various conservative organizations, they seem little interested in my experiences, as if they just didn’t happen or are aberrations.

More often than not, these self-assured individuals so convinced about the real nature of the Republican Party and American conservatism have never met more than a handful of Republicans nor even attended a meeting of a Republican committee or auxiliary.  Such individuals are thus not qualified to talk about the GOP, much less address whether or not there is a place for gay people in the party.

With a prejudiced view of the GOP just like that of those individuals, Andrew Sullivan demonstrated his competence to serve on the Cato Institute panel addressing that very topic.  According to my friend Rick Sincere who attended the panel, the Obama-enamored blogger lambastedd the GOP:

Sullivan went on to criticize the Republican party for accelerating its “campaign of fear” against gay people and said the GOP “is no longer a political party; it is a religious party [whose members] owe absolute obedience to the President.” The Republican Party’s “soul has been corrupted,” Sullivan said solemnly.

Maybe he needs to say this to secure his place on the left, but this description has little resemblance to the party with which I’m familiar and in which I’ve participated (not to mention countless other openly gay men and lesbians).  Someone should have asked him where he derived his information.  Had he walked precincts with Republican volunteers, participated in GOP committee meetings, spoken to gatherings of Republican clubs?  Or had he read about it on left-wing blogs?

Andrew Sullivan was talking about a Republican Party which exists entirely in his imagination.

And while Andrew talked the conservative talk, opposing hate crimes laws, calling himself a Thatcherite, he refused to address his support for Obama’s program.   (more…)

Reporting that the “largest gay rights group in New Jersey has just voted unanimously to stop giving contributions to all political parties (they only gave to Dem. committees)”, John Aravosis predicts:

I suspect we’ll see other state gay rights groups follow NJ’s lead, which is based on, whether intentionally or not, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Give campaign that . . .  our Netroots allies, launched in November. And perhaps it’s time that national gay rights group did the same, rather than simply serving as an appendage of the Democratic party instead of serving their own community.

(Emphasis added.)

As I’ve written previously, I believe the boycott that John has spearheaded has helped spur the Administration to move forward on DADT.   That said, I’m  delighted to see John recognize yet again what we and other gay conservatives have been saying for many years about HRC and their allied groups.  They act more like the gay auxiliaries of the Democratic Party than independent groups advocating for gay rights.

To be sure, while we offer similar criticisms, we would likely seek different solutions.  We agree on repealing DADT, but part company on other issues.  All that said, I admire anyone who stands for their principles without engaging in name-calling and misrepresentation (or any other form of mean-spirited attack).  From all that I have read on this issue, John, the folks at Queerty and Pam Spaulding have focused on their opposition to Democratic Party inaction on issues of concern to them.

So, kudos to them for standing tall for their beliefs.  And special thanks to John for giving me a great title for a post.

(H/t:  Instapundit.)

Just take a gander at this post over at Queerty where they take on the gay auxiliary to the Democratic Party Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

Somonese and HRC’s and Allison Herwitt were among the guests (list here, PDF) for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s January event, where well-connected civilians (read: moneybags from McDonald’s, Altria, Home Depot, and Merck) got to hob nob with senators including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, Robert Menendez (DSCC’s chairman), and Claire McCaskill (who we identified as the star of today’s hearings).

If you query HRC, they’ll tell you that HRC’s involvement in DSCC invents, and the Democrat party in general, is crucial to their efforts in lobbying lawmakers to pass gay rights legislation. That is partly true. To us, however, it sounds like more of the Gay Inc. organization’s business-as-usual M.O., where the group’s annual budget is devoted to Solmonese making nice with lawmakers in exchange for inaction, platitudes, and delays.

These bloggers contend it’s all about Joe getting a chance to schmooze with the big (Democratic) boys and girls at some swank South Beach resort.  It sure looks like that to us as well.

Well, while HRC may not be a very effective lobbying organization, it is effective at raising money.  And all that money’s got to pay for something, so why not let Joe have a swell time with his fellow partisans?

“It might smell like ineffective strategy” contend the folks at Queerty, “but it reeks of self-aggrandizement.”

Those guys don’t mince words.  Read the whole thing.

On my pile of things to blog about has long sat a pamphlet by Robert Spencer, The Islamic Jihad Against Gays:  Why isn’t the Muslim Students Association speaking out? Published by the conservative David Horowitz Freedom Center, the pamphlet addresses an issue which most (but fortunately not all) liberal groups and gay organizations care to consider, the plight of our fellows in Islamofascist nations like Iran.

Now, another one of David’s media enterprises is addressing anti-gay attitudes among Islamic scholars, an issue to which many gay organizations seem blind.  On yesterday’s Front Page Magazine, straight blogger Eric Golub reported on a “lecture last week at the UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies (CNES)” where Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, offered some theories which, if offered by a conservative would raise the hackles of gay organizations from coast to coast.

Golub calls the talk “anti-gay,” but from his report, it sounded just plain bizarre to me:

Massad . . . explained that “Queer is about resistance to Islam.” Similarly, he said that “There is no Arabic transliteration of queer. It is a judgmental notice of deviance.” In a particularly striking claim, Massad insisted that, for Muslims, concepts like “hate and sexuality are only translatable to English-speaking people.” Muslim honor killings, presumably, are only a figment of non-Muslims imagination.

Massad also used the occasion to present a novel – and decidedly homophobic – conspiracy theory. “Queer is an imperialist term,” he announced. “It is part of the Anglo-American gay agenda.” Indeed, according to Massad, “queer is an example of cultural imperialism.”

Now, I’m not particularly partial to the term “queer,” but wouldn’t even consider calling it an “imperialist” term.

It’s good to see mainstream conservative organizations addressing the plight of gays in Iran and confronting the prejudiced attitude certain Islamic scholars have toward people like us.  It would be nice if our home-grown gay organizations also took note of these prejudices.

One of the main reasons I find it difficult to embrace the gay marriage, er, marriage equality movement, is that its proponents seem more interested in the abstract notion of “equality” than in the real institution of marriage. Its advocates are less interested in promoting marriage than in winning, to borrow an expression from my friend Dale Carpenter, a “trophy in the cultural wars.“

We see this again this week when none of the national gay organizations took issue with those in the media who contend that gay people are incapable of meeting one of the primary obligations of matrimony:  monogamy.  Last Tuesday, January 26, on The View, Joy Behar said that gays, “don’t take monogamy and infidelity the same way that the straight community does.”  Two days later in the New York Times, Scott James reported approvingly on the number of gay couples trying “to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony.”  Many are omitting monogamy:

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area.  The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Now, I don’t know what percentage of those couples consider themselves married.  And to be sure, while it wouldn’t be my choice to be part of an open relationship, I do believe individuals should be free to design their relationships as they see fit.  Open relationships may well be fulfilling to the individuals involved, but they’re not marriages.

Given that marriage is based on sexual exclusivity, to call a nonmonogamous union “marriage” is indeed to subvert the meaning of the institution.

By refusing to criticize those who see gay people as incapable of monogamy, gay organizations lend credence to social conservative arguments that gay marriage advocates seek to subvert the institution they’re ostensibly trying to promote.  I could find nothing denouncing Ms. Behar on the web-sites of the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights or even Freedom (sic) to Marry.  Even my various google searches turned up no commentary from the head of these organizations taking Ms. Behar to task for her prejudice against gay people.  I could find none addressing the New York Times article.

As can be expected, it was only on blogs where gay people defended the ability of their fellows to meet the same conditions of marriage expected of our straight peers. The folks at Queerty responded that conversations about gay monogamy are best left in hands other than The View gals. Over at Good As You, Jeremy Hooper was astounded that Behar “could have such an uninformed opinion about gay relationships as a whole“: (more…)

As you may have heard by now CBS  has “rejected an ad submitted by a gay dating website to air during next Sunday’s Super Bowl.“

And all this hullabaloo has made me aware of mancrunch.com, a site with which I had heretofore been unfamiliar.  Moreover, since I’m not going to be watching the Superbowl, I likely wouldn’t have heard about them had CBS run the ad.  So, if the site owner’s purpose in proposing the ad were to draw attention to their site, they succeeded.

The ad shows two men making out.  And according to the Hollywood Reporter that was too much for CBS:

The network shot down the commercial Friday in a letter to the site — ManCrunch.com — saying the “creative is not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday.”

Also the network said its sales department had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad.

The ad seems a pretty low budget affair, so it doesn’t appear the site has a lot of money to promote itself.  CBS should have just left it at the creditworthiness of the company without raising the standards issue

Saying it did raise that issue, the network has given the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) grounds to fault the network. GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios said, “This network should come clean to the public about what’s going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard.”  Barrios is right to question the company.

Though, considering the questions about the company’s ability to guarantee payment of the cost to air the ad, it does seem to be “a publicity stunt.”  A lot of gay people now know about the site.

So, I’m wondering if the same folks who sued eHarmony for not offering a service to match up gay people will sue Mancrunch for not offering to match up straight people or lesbians for that matter.

HEADS-UP:  In the comments section of the Newsbusters piece on the hullabaloo, a very smart young man defends CBS on capitalist grounds.  You should be able to identify him by the quality of his arguments and the name of his family.

An Instapundit reader wrote Glenn Reynolds to report that Hawai’i “one-party state; the state house of reps is 45-6 Democrat-Republican and the state senate is 23-2. Yes, your family has more members eating together at a breakfast than the Hawaii senate minority.”  So, naturally, given the hosannas the gay auxiliary to the Democratic National Committee Human Rights Campaign (HRC) sing to their the Democratic Party, you’d think the Aloha State legislature would be at the forefront of the fight for gay people.

Well, that reader was commenting on Glenn’s post about Hawai’i killing civil unions: “Hawaii lawmakers declined to vote Friday on a bill that would have allowed same-sex civil unions, effectively doing away with the measure.“

And who could have prevented just such a vote?  Hmmm. . . . let me see.  Now, who sets the legislative calendar?  Is it the minority party?  Nope, it’s the majority, so I’m guessing that with 45 Democrats in the Hawai’i House, the Speaker is not a Republican.  And the article confirms it.  Calvin K.Y. Say, a Democrat, holds the job.  My hunch was correct.  Indeed, he pretty much takes responsibility for the failure to vote on the measure:

“You can call me a coward, but we are all not cowards. We’ll make our tough decisions as we go ahead,” Democratic Speaker of the House Calvin Say said he told civil union backers. “But members were concerned, and that was my role as the speaker to make that determination and decision to do what we did today.”

Well, if the members are concerned, perhaps they think their constituents oppose extending civil unions benefits to same-sex couples.  Seems like there’s work to be done in making the case.

HRC did do a press release on the matter, but unlike the AP, did not identify Mr. Say’s partisan affiliation.  In fact the word Democrat is not to be found in their release.  Nor do they mention that the Governor who “has never made a veto threat on the topic of Civil Unions” is a Republican.  Nor do they name her.

Don’t want to ruin that narrative, Joe, now do we?

In what may be the best bit of news for gay Americans since the Supreme Court handed down the Lawrence decision (though the Heller decision making it easier for us to defend ourselves against gay bashers was also pretty significant), John Fund (in today’s Political Diary) suggests that the unhappy Barney Frank may be facing electoral problems in Scott Brown’s Masachusetts.

Having called for the abolition of Fannie Mae and Fredddie Mac (Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) he has repeatedly defended in the past), that mean-spirited Democrat is

. . . suddenly sounding a lot more moderate, possibly because he may be the most vulnerable of the state’s incumbents.

Mr. Frank is the most powerful lawmaker in the Massachusetts House delegation given his chairmanship of the banking committee, but he also managed to win reelection by a smaller percentage than any of his Massachusetts colleagues in the blowout Democratic year of 2008. Yes, his 68% tally that year would still be the envy of most pols, but it was his worst showing since 1992. In many years, he ran unopposed, collecting virtually 100% of the vote. And because Mr. Frank’s decline began even before the recent rebellion over health-care reform and deficit spending, a good bet is that he’s been neglecting basic constituent services. Several potential GOP candidates already have expressed interest in the 4th District. Whoever the Republican is, Mr. Frank could be facing his toughest campaign since the early 1980s thanks to the anti-Washington tide.

Let’s certainly hope so. With his consistent refusal to admit his errors, the role he played in obstructing reforms of Fannie and Freddie , his conflict of interest in serving on the committee overseeing Fannie while his partner worked for the GSE, this most prominent gay lawmaker has long been an embarrassment to the gay community.

Should Barney remove himself from the public eye, it could only help improve the image of gay people in America.

Ever since I saw the Gallup poll showing a 12-point shift in the number of conservatives favoring allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the military, I wondered what it was that caused such a significant change.

That shift in attitude took place in what was supposed to be a dark age for gay Americans.  The older poll was taken showing 46% of conservatives opposing restrictions on gay people’s service the same month George W. Bush was winning reelection.  The next poll was taken just four months after he left office.

Was it just the increasing tolerance of gay people in American society which accounted for this 26% jump in the number of American conservatives developing a more favorable attitude toward gay service members?  Or were there other factors?  Were there any prominent stories about the topic?

There was, to be sure, a lot of heat generated around the publication of Mary Cheney’s book.  Hugh Hewitt had this charming and well-spoken lesbian on his show for a full hour.   Maybe her exposure to Hugh’s conservative audience caused some of his listeners to reconsider their attitudes toward gay pepole.  We will never really know whether Mary’s brief turn on the national stage accounts for the entire shift.  Still, it must have played a role.  When American conservatives learn that one of their heroes has embraced his openly lesbian daughter, that’s sure to register.

Mary Cheney may well be the most consequential Vice Presidential Progeny in American history.

And she’d rather be rock-climbing.

Back in the mid-1990s when I worked on Capitol Hill, I found that certain Congressman stood out because of the manner in which they treated staffers.  Some seemed to turn away if it looked like you were about to talk to them.  Others would respond courteously to your greetings, but in a regal manner, as if that were the response owed to polite peons.

And then, there were the just plain decent ones.  And they didn’t divide themselves along partisan lines.  Phil Crane may have been haughty (would later lose his seat), but Eleanor Holmes Norton was amicable, often chatting with staffers in the elevator and thanking those who waited for her to exit before doing so themselves.

Two members, however, stood out for their decency, then-Reps. Joe Scarborough (now of MSNBC) and Harold Ford, Jr., the former a Republican, the latter a Democrat.  I believe their offices were right next to each other.  Each had a great smile and a pleasant manner.  Perhaps, it’s because of Ford’s friendly manner that I’ve been cheering him on as he contemplates challenging New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in their state’s Democratic primary.

But, alas, as I learned in a post linked by Glenn Reynolds, that good man has attracted the animus of New York’s “Angry Gays.”  And we know they’re not easily placated.  ”Their beef seems to knows no bounds: Ford’s dismal anti-gay voting record back in Tennessee.”  Yet, the post provides no details of said voting record.  Still, gay activists in the Empire State have been quick to condemn this young man, with their “rapid-fire” response to his talk of challenging Gilibrand confirming “the potency of their furor — and newfound commitment to taking on politicians deemed enemies of the gay state.”

Enemies of the gay state?  Huh?  Sounds like the attitude of defenders of Communist regimes.

Guess it’s not enough for the gay thought police if someone changes his mind on gay marriage (as Ford has done, now supporting it).  There is no placating some gay activists who demand complete subservience to a set ideology, including adherence to the social justice code of the “progressive” elites.

Well, anyone with one iota of “gaydar” could have figured that out on their own.  Just look around Hartsfield Airport if you are passing through.

Advocate: America’s Gayest Cities

According to The Advocate magazine, Atlanta rates as the nation’s gayest city, followed by Burlington, Vt., Iowa City, Bloomington and Madison, Wis. Don’t bother looking for San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles — those supposed gay meccas don’t even place in the rankings compiled by the nation’s oldest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender publication.

Though their research was admittedly unscientific, it’s not without merit. Correspondent Mike Albo awarded points based on same-sex households per capita, statewide marriage equality, gay elected officials, gay dating and “hookup” profiles per single male population, gay bars per capita, cruising spots per capita, and gay films in Netflix favorites.

Atlanta:  Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay.  Great food, too!  But Charlotte is still a better place to live! 

Oh and by the way — there are a LOT of cities in RED STATES on the list.  Including the #1 city being in one of the most Republican states in the USA.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I was driving to the airport today (another hellish travel week ahead), I wondered why the Obamacare health legislation was ignoring gay-related issues.  After all, this healthcare legislation has devolved into a series of identity-politics buy-offs.

For example, unions are getting a multi-year break from the “Cadillac” healthcare tax.   And we all know about the Nebraska bribe that Senator Nelson secured.

So what’s missing?  You got it!  The most liberal Congress and Administration in a generation is completely ignoring the impact of healthcare reform on the LGBT community — one of its most loyal identity -politics shills.

With the passage of Obamacare to be decided on less than a handful of House votes, where is Tammy Baldwin or Barney Frank?  Why the hell aren’t they standing up and demanding the same kind of treatment for gays and lesbians under Obamacare that union members are getting?

What do I mean?  Well, one example is the individual mandate.  My health insurance covers my partner, John.  But he, like millions of others like him, will be forced to buy health insurance under Obamacare even though he doesn’t need it.  This individual mandate is the “Gay Health Tax” as it punishes domestic partners more than any other group in America.  Funny how the media hasn’t reported this and Reps. Baldwin & Frank aren’t standing up for us.

If that idea isn’t good enough for LGBT-friendly Democrats, how about exempting HIV drugs from whatever formularies are mandated by the “health exchanges”?  Or providing subsidies for HIV drugs regardless of income.

I could go on and on.

The question that American gays and lesbians need to ask:  Where were your Democrat friends when the goodies were being handed out in the Healthcare Reform Legislation?

We already know the answer:  AWOL.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In observing the silence (with a few notable exceptions) of gay organizations and activists about the noble example set by Dick Cheney from the moment his daughter Mary came out to him, through his tenure as Vice President and continuing to this very day, we learned about the true nature of those activists.  They were less interested in changing attitudes toward gay people than promoting an image of an intolerant right-wing.

Any group (or individual) which regularly addressed gay issues and which was truly concerned about the treatment of gay people in American society would commend the conservative Vice President for the example he set, accepting his daughter as she is, welcoming her same-sex partner into their family, including her in public events as he would include his straight daughter’s husband.

To be sure, much (but not all) of the intolerance and hatred of gay people in America occurs on the right, but, as any gay individual involved in the conservative movement over the past twenty years has observed, there is an increasing openness to people like us.  First, we were just tolerated as long as we kept our private lives to ourselves, now we’re often welcomed, even when we represent a gay auxiliary or blog.

The CPAC contretemps over the inclusion of GOProud represents, in many ways, a major milestone in the history of the gay right, indeed is illustrative of the state of mainstream conservatives today.  A conservative organization seeks to include both social conservatives and gay conservatives.  The extreme social conservatives raise a ruckus.  And the conservative organization which won’t yield to their request to exclude the gay group.

If their goal were the general welfare of gay people in American today, gay groups would be singing hosannas, praising CPAC for it actions and commending GOProud for participating as a gay organization in a conservative confab.   (more…)

In doing some research on the background of Massachusetts Republican Senate nominee Scott Brown, I uncovered an interesting factoid.  That good man was first elected to the Massachusetts Senate in a special election to replace Cheryl Jacques who had resigned her seat to take up the presidency of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

That partisan woman wouldn’t last a year, stepping down in November shortly after the project which defined her tenure at that left-wing organization failed.  Under her leadership, HRC sunk untold sums into stickers and signs with the slogan, “George W. Bush, you’re fired!”

Well, just as her erstwhile constituents didn’t pay much heed to Jacuqes in March of 2004, preferring Brown to her aide, Angus McQuilken, neither did American voters pay heed to her attempt to unseat W. Let’s hope Brown shows a similar resilience next week.

Please find below the text of my post, “Cheryl Jacques, You’re Fired” from November 2004. It disappeared when someone hijacked our original site on blogspot. (more…)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

As I’ve been preparing for my presentation tonight to LA’s Westside Republicans, I’ve been reviewing statistics on corporate policies toward gay employees and have been impressed to discover how quickly these private enterprises have responded to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in American society.  And the pace at which they offered benefits to same-sex domestic partners of employees did not slacken during the supposed dark days of the George W. Bush Era.

Indeed, the bellyaching of the gay left notwithstanding, the Bush Era was a Golden one for Gay Americans, thanks in large part to the greatness of the federal structure our framers designed–and to the freedom inherent in the American “experiment.”   It has become increasingly easy to live openly as a gay person in the United States.  Private organizations–and even some government ones–have made greater efforts to accommodate gay employees.

In 2000, only 255 corporations in the Fortune 500 had adopted non-discrimination policies including sexual orientation.  When Bush left office, that number was up to 472.  Last February, just a few weeks after that much anticipated (in gay political circles) departure, HRC (yes, that HRC) reported that its  ”2007-2008 [State of the Workplace] report revealed rapid expansion of protections for LGBT workers in the private sector over the past decade.”  A decade in which Republicans dominated Congress and where for eight years George W. Bush had been in the White House.

In 2000, only 102 Fortune 500 companies offered benefits to same-sex partners of their employees  In 2008, 286 did. Two years previously, before Democrats had recaptured Congress, Amy Joyce reported in the Washington Post that the “number of Fortune 500 companies that include domestic partner benefits has more than doubled since 2000.”  More than doubled under W’s watch?  Interesting.  Very interesting. (more…)

From GOProud:

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls for a special election to replace U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D). Recent polling shows Republican State Senator Scott Brown in a virtual tie with Democrat Martha Coakley.

“As the polls get closer and closer, Democrats and their allies on the left get more and more desperate. Democrats are unable to defend their record on taxes, spending, the economy, job creation, healthcare or the global war on terror, so instead they turn to smears, distortions and name-calling,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud.

“In the last few weeks the gay left has slandered Scott Brown, claiming that he is ‘anti-gay.’ The truth is that Scott Brown has said that same-sex marriage is settled law in Massachusetts. Scott Brown has also said they he believes each state should decide its marriage laws – the exact same position taken by President Barack Obama.”

“What has 60 Democratic Senators delivered for gay families so far? Unemployment over 10%, spending spiraling out of control, a super majority bent on expanding discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam. Nothing would send a clearer message to the current leadership in Washington about the unhappiness that all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans, have with the direction in Washington then a win by Scott Brown.”

So late today the Senate in New Jersey, one of the blueist of blue states (based on recent Prez elections), defeated a gay marriage proposal.

Gay rights advocates were confident of a legislative win and they pushed for passage while defeated Gov. Corzine was still holding his bill-signing pen.

So WTF? What has happened to the gay marriage movement? If you lose in CA and NJ, where do you go now?

I think it is a dead issue. Dead.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

One of our readers, the blogger sometimes known as That Gay Conservative, alerted me to an interesting post that gets at something we’ve been saying for sometime: “Declaring people who don’t think gay marriage is good policy as ‘anti-gay’ was always an obvious slander.“

With these words, blogger Brian Garst comments on a New York Times article reporting that while Texans voted overwhelmingly (“by a ratio of three to one”) to enact “a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage“, citizens twice elected one lesbian as sheriff of Dallas County, another as district attorney for Travis County and yet another as Mayor of Houston, the state’s largest city.

The title says it all, “Gay Candidates Get Support That Causes May Not”.  Social tolerance of openly gay people grows with each passing day.  An overwhelming majority of Americans, including (I would daresay) most conservatives, don’t really care about an individual’s sexual orientation, they just don’t favor the “equality” agenda of the left-wing gay groups.  And while said groups may tar opponents of their ideology “anti-gay,” a good many (but alas not all) of these opponents are anything but.

Many simply believe the word “marriage” means a lifelong monogamous union between individuals of different sexes.

And it’s not just in the debate over gay marriage where those offering an inconvenient viewpoint or publishing inconvenient information are tarred as anti-gay.  Those who dare report one of the most underreported stories of the year just concluded are also slimed as “anti-gay.”