Gay Patriot Header Image

Guy Benson on Being Gay and Conservative

Posted by V the K at 2:41 pm - January 23, 2018.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

YouTube Preview Image

A Gay Republican on Pays Trous-de-Merde

Posted by V the K at 1:01 pm - January 14, 2018.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

Language advisory. But… why can’t we be honest and admit that many foreign countries as well as Democrat-run American cities are trous-de-merde? In a country run by sane and rational people, the central pillar of immigration policy would be “Who will benefit the country? Let them in. Who will be a problem? Keep them out.”

Follow him on Twitter if you want. Twitter is also a trou-de-merde.

YouTube Preview Image

Careful of what people claim to be

Every human being alive (I’m no exception) likes people who agree with him or her. Hearing what we want to hear gives our brains a positive jolt. Gathering with like-minded people makes us feel “at home”. It’s human nature. Heck, it’s the reason I started visiting this blog (which is Bruce’s), years ago.

We also like to think that our heroes / important authorities would agree with us. This can be used for a marketing advantage. For example, if you dislike Donald Trump or his key supporters, you can get a leg up – in terms of having on-the-fence people read you or believe you – if you pretend to speak for the Republican party, as Ana Navarro does.

Or you could go Reagan. I’ve seen many folks quote (or re-tweet) a certain anti-Trump presence calling themselves The Reagan Battalion.

For my part, I’ve always felt a tad suspicious of them. They never struck me as especially Reagan-esque, or as linked to the Reagan legacy in some extra way that would justify claiming his name. The name strikes me as a marketing effort to say “Believe us, because we promise, Ronald Reagan R Us! Totes legit!”

I tend to be suspicious of Argument from Authority, and its variations like Argument from Biography, or Argument from What I Claim To Be. This is one reason (there are others) why I don’t talk my biography here on GP. My presence sort-of-tells people I’m gay, and my handle (ILC) announces my general ideology; other than that, I work to make my information/arguments stand on their merits.

Anyway: Lucian Wintrich, a gay Trump supporter and journalist, has done a piece critical of The Reagan Battalion that may be of interest. He says they were part of the anti-Milo campaign earlier this year (which I agree was a smear pile-on and as such, not the tiniest bit Reagan-esque). Wintrich links to other journalism that ties The Reagan Battalion to Democrat money and sketchy activists, per FEC and IRS filings.

This is one where I don’t claim to know “the truth”; just pointing out the article and letting people comment.

It must suck to be Out

Is “Out Magazine” the home of depressed, dour scolds? They’ve been popping that way lately, but you be the judge.

First, they laid it on thick about Milo’s supposed low book sales:

Nobody is Buying Milo Yiannopoulos’ Memoir, Dangerous…

In today’s fake news, alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is claiming his book, Dangerous, has sold more than 100,000 copies.

The problem with that number is that it’s not real. Nielsen Bookscan, which monitors book sales through almost all outlets, has reported book sales for the former Breitbart editor are much, much lower. Since launching on July 4, Dangerous has sold 18,268 copies in the US and 152 in the UK…

A google search shows other left-wing outlets, like Salon and The Guardian, joining in the schadenfreude.

The problem is, their numbers are shaky. Milo is selling fine. He’s entering the best-seller lists at anywhere from #5 to #1; the first 100k run is spoken for and they’re printing more; Amazon has to ship his book slow (when they even have it). As to the 152 UK copies, the book isn’t even on sale there; a minimum of 152 UK buyers paid for international shipping. Fake News, indeed.

Next, via Breitbart, Out Magazine Encourages Readers to ‘Drop’ Gay Republican Friends

“We drop friends all the time for a whole variety of reasons—they messed with our loves lives, they lied, they weren’t supportive—so why do some people think it’s such an outlandish idea to dump them for their political views?” asked actor, singer, and writer Michael Musto in his column for OUT Magazine…

Musto goes on to admit that his social media experience has been more “gratifying” since he’s decided to block any user who disagrees with him…

Here’s a clue for you, Out: By all means, drop us. Here on the liberty-loving Right, we do believe in freedom of association – and we won’t miss you in the least 😉


On a fun note…Milo had a Coming Out Conservative event in New York.

YouTube Preview Image

I’m sure GP readers can relate to idea that nowadays, it is MUCH harder to come out as conservative than as gay.

Dangerous Faggot

I have unblocked the word “faggot” in our comments section. It was past time, for 2 reasons:

  • South Park “The F Word” made “fag” OK in 2009.
  • Milo – it’s impossible to cover him without mentioning his “Dangerous Faggot” lecture tour.

As to Milo, he has re-launched. (He appears around 58:45 in the video.) Highlights:

  • He has raised $12 million for a new media and book-publishing company that will be dedicated to ending political correctness and “making the lives of journalists, professors, politicians, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists and other professional victims a living hell.”
  • He will be suing Simon & Schuster (presumably for breach of contract?), asking another $10 million.
  • He is still planning MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK (no dates on it).

I saw this coming, after the Left’s coordinated attack on him in February. He’s not one to stay down and out.

By the way, Vanity Fair hates him. And if you’re thinking “pedophilia”, Milo had a few words for you back in February: “I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst.” We at GayPatriot agree.

He’s Baaa-aaaaaack

After Milo’s trouble in February, I knew he’d be back. He has a lot to say, he needs the attention, he’s fun and the camera loves him.

Via, it’s MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK. (I think the all-caps are part of the shtick?)

In light of recent controversies, I am planning a huge multi-day event called MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK in Berkeley later this year. We will hold talks and rallies and throw massive parties, all in the name of free expression and the First Amendment. All will be welcome, regardless of political affiliation.

During MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK, we will give out a new free speech prize — the Mario Savio Award — to the person we believe has done most to protect free expression at UC Berkeley and its surrounding area. Each day will be dedicated to a different enemy of free speech, including feminism, Black Lives Matter and Islam.

If UC Berkeley does not actively assist us in the planning and execution of this event, we will extend festivities to an entire month. We will establish a tent city on Sproul Plaza protesting the university’s total dereliction of its duty and encourage students at other universities to follow suit.
I intend to return Berkeley to its rightful place as the home of free speech — whether university administrators and violent far-left antifa thugs like it or not.

Mario Savio was, per Wiki, “a key member in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. He is most famous for his passionate speeches, especially the ‘put your bodies upon the gears’ address given at Sproul Hall…on December 2, 1964.”

P.S. I respect and admire Ann Coulter, but do you want to know the difference between her and Milo? A penis and $20,000. (My understanding is that she charges 20K to speak to College Republicans, while he charges them zero. If that’s incorrect, I would be happy to hear it in the comments.)

NY Times Warns LGBT to Stay on the Plantation

Posted by V the K at 3:59 pm - February 13, 2017.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

A feminist GLAAD operative writing in the New York Times says LGBT people who vote Republicans are traitors to their victim group.

L.G.B.T. conservatives argue that they are not “one-issue voters,” that while the rights of queer Americans are important, they are not the only factor. There are a lot of issues that constitute political identity, and as it turns out, some voters feel that their own rights are not the most urgent.

i.e. “What’s wrong with these idiots that they think economic growth, fiscal responsibility, and national security are more important than forcing Christian businesses to bake cakes for gay weddings and letting trannies use the other sex’s bathroom.”

As I listened, I wondered whether L.G.B.T. rights really ought not to be the most conservative of causes. Above all else we want to be left alone, without interference, to live our lives with truth and grace. What could be more conservative than that?

And yet the modern Republican Party seems to have no problem interfering with people’s privacy when it comes to sexuality and gender identity. From abortion rights to opposition to marriage equality, the Republicans have advocated more government intrusion into private lives, not less.

Except that Government control of “marriage equality” is, by definition, intrusion into private lives.

Also, the Democrats want to the Government to control the employment decisions of small businesses and who they have to serve; what kind of car you’re allowed to drive; what kind of health insurance you must have or face fines; where your kids must go to school and what indoctrination they must receive; who is allowed to speak on college campuses; who you’re allowed to rent that spare room in your house to, if at all; the ethnic composition of your neighborhood; who can be denied their due process rights (innocent college men accused of rape); what political groups you are allowed to donate money to; and they would completely deny you the right to own a  firearm for self-defense.

And they are baffled why these freedoms are more important to some of us than pieces of paper, tranny bathrooms, or forcing people to bake wedding cakes.

And Another One…

Posted by V the K at 9:17 am - February 13, 2017.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

An urban homosexual leaves the left for the center-right and discovers there is more… much more… acceptance of gays in conservative circles than there is of conservatives in gay circles.

The impetus for his decision was writing a fair and objective article about Milo Yiannopoulos… the current Emmanuel Goldstein of the stupid, violent left. His longtime liberal “friends” turned on him, called him a Nazi, and in the manner of spoiled middle school girls everywhere, began ostracizing him from their clique.

It used to be that if you were a gay, educated atheist living in New York, you had no choice but to be liberal. But as I met more Trump supporters with whom I was able to have engaging, civil discussions about issues that impact us all, I realized that I like these people — even if I have some issues with Trump himself. For example, I don’t like his travel ban or the Cabinet choices he’s made.

But I finally had to admit to myself that I am closer to the right than where the left is today. And, yes, just three months ago, I voted for Hillary Clinton.

I often wonder, does the gay Democrat left really believe in all the socialist and social justice bullcrap their party embraces? Are they onboard with Bernie Sanders’s 94% tax rate? Do they really support the mass importation of Islamic Supremacists? Do they want to be disarmed? Or are they just ignorant and content to be thrown a bone every once in a while? Happy to exchange freedom, prosperity, and safety for a piece of paper from the Government that somehow is necessary to legitimize their relationships?

Why Hillary Lost

I think this “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” clip is a window into the soul of our dear Lady Bug Eyes. Turn off the sound and watch for what’s in her heart.

YouTube Preview Image

You may have a different impression, but I see something in her that could have started as frustration except it took a dark turn, into malice. To me, she looks like she wants revenge on the world. Mind you, this is pre-election and how she asks for some people’s votes.

On to a couple of articles.

  • More on Hillary’s conference call with her rich donors.

    V touched on this earlier. Camp Bug Eyes’ spin is that the media “eviscerated” Hillary, with the connivance of stupid FBI Directory Comey who kept the email scandal alive. Of course the opposite is true: the media was super pro-Hillary, with the connivance of sleazy FBI Directory Comey who did whatever he could to deaden the email scandal.

  • Victor Davis Hanson on Why Trump Won. A good summary. The man can write.
  • Democrats head for civil war. Seething Bernie-ites want to purge the Clintonites; who in turn, blame the Bernie-ites for general childishness and not turning out to vote.

UPDATE: Trump on gays – He gets it. I had missed the following clip. Here it is, for anyone else who missed it. (more…)

Twink for Trump in His Own Words

Posted by V the K at 10:47 am - September 2, 2016.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

In his own words.

This story was also posted at Gateway Pundit.  Conservative comments: almost universally supportive.

Same story posted at left-wing gay blog
: Comments from left-wing queens: hateful, negative, and filled with dumb hackneyed cliches.

… you are a self hating gay republican …  I pity you that this is what you need to do to get attention.

Or gross creepiness.

Little boy, there is really only one thing that someone who refers to himself as a twink is good for.

Sorta proves his point, y;know?

BTW: When do we get to hear from Bears4Trump?

H/T: Peter H.

Daily Show Fails to Humiliate Gay Conservatives

Posted by V the K at 5:44 pm - July 20, 2016.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

The Daily Show… that thing on Comedy Central where Low-Information Millennials used to get their news… tried to mock gay conservatives at Milo’s “Gays for Trump” Party. The Daily Show camera crew got really snippy when partygoers turned the tables on them.

“I wanted to shoot raw footage of their interview with a young, gay conservative, because I wanted to compare it to their final cut and see whether they had been fair to him,” Pollak recalled.

“I didn’t want this person to be humiliated merely for being gay and having the ‘wrong’ political views,” Pollak added.

“They told me not to film, then they told me —incorrectly — that I couldn’t film them, and then one of their reporters pushed me. Finally, they gave up, packed up their cameras and ran away.”

Republicans Plan Gay Bash at Convention

Posted by V the K at 12:09 pm - July 13, 2016.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

(HT: Peter H) Milo and Pam Gellar are throwing a bash to welcome gheys to the RNC convention at the Mistake by the Lake.

We invite you to join us at WAKE UP, a party Tuesday night at the GOP convention. Come join us for music, drinks, and fun!

If you’re like us, the massacre in Orlando last month was a giant wake-up call. As gay Americans, we could no longer stay silent about a barbaric ideology that wants us dead and that actively threatens the freedoms of all Americans.
Organizing WAKE UP is our small way of fighting back — by raising awareness, speaking out, and having a fabulous time in the process.

By joining us at WAKE UP, you can help this effort and have an amazing time over music, drinks, and fun. Oh, and check out our incredible speakers and VIP guests!

WAKE UP is open to the entire GOP community, not just the gays and the Ls and the Ts. Come join us and help us wake up America! Click the register button above to RSVP.

If gay conservatives are right, this will be a very fun inclusive party.

If the gay left is right, this is a trap and mobs of deranged Christian conservatives will be waiting to stone them to death.

We shall see.

HomoCon Not Warmly Received by HuffPo Comment Drones

Posted by V the K at 8:49 pm - June 25, 2016.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

Some fella wrote an “Hello, I’m Gay and Conservative” article for the left-wing Huffington Post Writer-Screwing website.  He gives the Blogfather a shoutout, which is nice. but the article itself is pretty much nothing that hasn’t been said here before. It’s interesting that one of his main points is that leftists can only think in terms of stereotypes and cliches, and he can’t have a dialogue with them because they are uninterested in hearing any opinion that isn’t in lockstep with their ideology. The comments from the HuffPo’s “tolerant and enlightened” lefty readership prove him right.

My experience with gay republicans are that they were not only raised in Christian households but politically charged ones. They were taught early on that being Christian means you are Republican and to go against Republican idealogy means you are going against God. I was like this when I was younger and struggled with deep internalized homophobia. Thankfully I got help and grew in my idea of God. You have to have some form of dislike for yourself and for people like you to support ideology that goes against you. [Yeah, the old “self-hating” cliche. They are *still* using that.]

Speaking of lame, tiresome cliches.

You’re trying to apologize for a politics very determinedly associated with hatred and oppression of gay people. Being gay might not define you – but supporting and enabling anti-gay bigots is MERELY pathetic. That would be why the “community” is uninterested in your voice – you’re trying to sell National Socialism to Jews.

BTW, did you know every Republican candidate has called for the extermination of gays?

Why would any gay person / American attach themselves to a party that had eighteen (?) presidential candidates align themselves with organizations that not only openly called for the deaths of gays but insist that Jews should not receive any rights under our constitution. 
We won’t get into what they think of Women, Blacks, Hispanics, etc, etc. 

Hey, it was said by a leftist homosexual ideologue on Huffington Post, so it must be true, right?

About half the comments to the article have been supportive; but they all came from conservatives.

The Left Wants to Disarm Gays; the Right Supports Gay Gun Rights

On issues of personal safety and the basic human right of gay people to defend themselves, the left is not on the side of gay people.

As The Federalist reported, openly gay individuals have been on the forefront of the gun-rights cause in Washington DC. The last three major gun-rights victories in the nation’s capitol have been fought and won by gay people.

A gay man who carries a gun for protection penned an editorial for the New York Daily News urging other gay people to arm themselves.

“Legally designated gun-free zones are invitations to killers,” wrote Tom G. Palmer, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, in the editorial published on Monday. “They get to rack up kills among defenseless victims without any effective opposition. There is a reason that they seek out such places: Everyone has been disarmed and rendered defenseless by the gun-control movement.”

It’s not the Right that wants gays to die cowering in bathrooms with shouts of “Allahu Akbar” ringing in their ears, it’s the American Left. (“It’s a good thing that bar was a gun free zone; it could have gotten messy if people could shoot back.”)

Also, an article explaining why using the Terror Watch List to deny citizens their Constitutional Rights is such a no good, very bad, completely unconstitutional violation of human rights that none of the anti-gun leftist lickspittles like George Takei will bother to read.

Gay Patriot (and Friends) Versus Apple

Posted by V the K at 2:56 pm - April 9, 2015.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

Tim Cook joined all the other progressive left poseurs in sanctimoniously denouncing Indiana’s Religious Freedom Protection law. At the time, some suggested some hypocrisy on the Apple CEO’s part because of his company’s active commercial presence in countries where the brutal oppression and even public execution of homosexuals is official government policy.

The owner of this blog… who generously allows this moron to post here… took the banner and ran with it.

Tim Cook says that, “Opposing discrimination takes courage,” and we agree.  We call on Mr. Cook to live up to our shared principles by pulling Apple out of Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran until they stop their official government policies of jailing and murdering gays and lesbians.

It takes N0 courage to “stand up to” bakers and florists who just don’t want to take part in gay weddings (although it gets you a lot of “trained seal applause” from other sanctimonious poseurs). Standing up to legitimately brutal regimes … that would be actual courage.

Tammy Bruce Fans Meet Up in El Lay

Posted by V the K at 4:19 pm - June 16, 2014.
Filed under: Divas,Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

Tammy Bruce has her own ‘Con,’ who knew?

Conservative dynamo Tammy Bruce is also celebrating her 5th anniversary — as the first conservative talk show host to go all-in on new media. The  Tammy Bruce Show is strictly on TalkStreamLive or available on podcast to members who join her “Tammy Army.”

Tammy runs an electronic “Chat Room,” where her fans can exchange observations, humor, and information. To say thanks, and to make these electronic friendships more personal, Tammy hosted a “meet-up” this weekend.

Our table was much like all the other tables, ringing with sharp, poignant and funny conversation.  A few topics:


Sounds like a fun time.

I would bet a Meet-Up of Tammy Bruce fans would be, in general, a much more mentally stable and positive group of people than those who gather at DailyKos’s Nutroots Nation.

On long discussions and gay-related policy news

Jeff’s brief post on Friday linking to a piece in The Onion has generated one of the longer discussion threads here in recent months at GayPatriot.  At the risk of mischaracterizing or oversimplifying it, much of the discussion has centered around the policy goals of gay activists of various stripes, as well as whether or not, criticizing or finding fault with some of those goals means one sympathizes with the aims of various anti-gay activists.

I think it is well-known to most regular readers that several of the contributors at GayPatriot, for instance, are either ambivalent or agnostic about the policy questions regarding same-sex marriage.  I, for one, feel that the courts are the wrong place for the argument over so-called “marriage equality” to proceed and that it is better taken up through the legislative process.  Likewise, I don’t feel that one needs to call it marriage if doing so antagonizes a significant portion of the populace who feel that marriage has a traditional meaning which they would rather not modify.  I’ve said before and I’ll say again that what we’re really talking about when we talk about same-sex marriage is a matter of  1). how the state recognizes a contractual relationship between two individuals, and 2). whether or not it has any business granting special privileges to those in a “traditional marriage” which it does not grant to others.  I’d argue that a debate that focused on the desirability of certain policy choices would be much more productive and much more worthwhile than one centered on emotional claims about “rights” and “equality.”  I’d also say that a more dispassionate debate about the implications of policy is more in keeping with both conservative and libertarian principles.

My aim today, though, is not to revisit that debate or to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions on those issues (though I’m still planning to do so in a future post), but to bring up some of the questions raised by the fact that today New Jersey became the second state (after California) to ban “conversion therapy” for gay youths.  My personal view on the issue is that “conversion therapy” doesn’t work in most cases and, to the extent that it is practiced, it should really only be viewed as an option for adults who choose to willingly commit to it.  In other words, New Jersey’s ban is in accord with my personal view on the matter, and yet, for philosophical reasons, I’m still bothered by some aspects of the legislation.

Neo-neocon expresses reservations similar to mine when she writes:

It is no use pretending that therapy—and the licensing of therapists by the state—is not at least partly a political endeavor subject to political fashion rather than a science. Nor should therapists be completely unrestricted. For example, therapists are already prohibited from sexual contact with patients—even willing patients, even adult patients—because it is considered inherently exploitative. But the most harmful practices that could be used by conversion therapists (for example, electric shock) could be banned without banning the entire enterprise. And as the articles point out, mainstream therapy organizations have already condemned conversion therapy and do not advocate it.

But apparently none of that would be enough for the advocates of this bill; the therapy itself must be defined by the government as inherently and unfailingly abusive (what’s next, taking children away from parents who don’t applaud and celebrate their gayness?) As the nanny state grows, so will these essentially political moves by the government. This bill opens the door for a host of governmental abuses in which the state dictates the enforcement of politically correct thought through the mechanism of so-called therapy, and therapists become the instruments by which the public is indoctrinated in what is currently politically acceptable and what is verboten.

Chilling, indeed.

At the risk of invoking the “slippery-slope” argument, I can’t see a way around the concerns that Neo-neocon expresses.  I’d have preferred to let the market regulate itself without getting the state involved in this way.  Once the state has weighed in on this question, though, where can we expect it to weigh in next, and will it ever stop trying to regulate the way parents raise their children?  I can’t see that it ever will.

It’s an unfortunate reality that many gay kids grow up in homes that are not especially loving, nurturing or supportive.   The state, though, is none of those things, either, no matter what the expressed intentions of lawmakers might be.  Increasing the reach of the state into individual lives should not be a comfort to any of us.

Weekend Gay Odds and Ends

Some weeks, life contains too many distractions and it’s hard to find time to blog.  At least that’s what happened to me this week.  My list of potential topics to write about keeps growing, but my time and, more importantly, my energy for writing about them has been rather limited.   In the meantime, I keep coming across links and articles of interest.  Here are a few things which caught my attention this week, that might interest our readers, as well, or at least generate further discussion.

I rarely look at the “Dear Abby” column these days, but this one caught my eye.  I wasn’t interested in the first item about the wife whose husband of 30 years was having an affair with a prostitute from a strip club.  No, the one that caught my eye was the second item, the one from the gay Democrat whose new romantic interest is a Republican, and suddenly, the Democrat finds that all his gay friends have cut him off and stopped calling him and inviting him to things.  I was intrigued to see gay leftist intolerance so openly acknowledged in a mainstream newspaper column.  Dear Abby responds:

I know several couples who have strong and happy “mixed” marriages in which the spouses do not always agree politically. It is a shame that you would be required to choose between the man you care for and your longtime friends, who want to ignore that there are also gay Republicans.

I see nothing wrong with continuing your relationship with Mark; however, I think it may be time for you to expand your circle of friends if this is how your old ones behave. You’ll all be happier if you do. Trust me on that.

On a related note, I appreciated this piece on “Coming Out as a Black Conservative” at PJMedia.  I’m sure most GayPatriot readers can relate to it.   I particularly liked its last point about the importance of independent thinking rather than group identity:

Independent thinking got you here. Independent thinking will keep you going. Group identity, or more specifically the group authority Shelby Steele writes about, degenerates into herd instinct in the unthinking. Individual rights can only be effectively defended by those who have rejected any claim upon their life. You do not belong to anyone. Your life is yours. Your mind is yours. Direct it intentionally. Choose what you believe and know why you believe it. Never let someone else, anyone else, tell you what you must think or do. By all means, consider trusted advice, but take responsibility for your decisions once made.

Also at PJMedia this week, VodkaPundit Stephen Green reflects on Rob Portman’s reversal on the issue of gay marriage and suggests that the best solution is to get government out of the marriage business in this piece.   As he explains, the left doesn’t really care about what’s best for gay people: “No, for the progressive left, gay marriage is just another club for beating America’s churches into submission to the State. First Catholic birth control, then Baptist gay marriage, and so on. Progressivism is a truly jealous god and will have no other gods before it — not even yours.”

Along similar lines, earlier this week, Rand Paul suggested that the best, most value-neutral solution, would be to get marriage out of the tax code.  Walter Hudson, author of the above-linked piece on “Coming Out as a Black Conservative,” also makes a related point in this article from January on “The Distinction Between Sin and Crime”:  “The uncomfortable truth surrounding the marriage issue is that heterosexual couples have long been subsidized by their unwed neighbors. It is that state endorsement which homosexuals covet, along with the social sanction it implies. Under government informed by objective morality, marriage contracts would be just that, conveying no special benefits beyond the terms agreed upon. As a result, religious individuals and institutions with conscientious objections to homosexuality would never be forced to violate their conscience.”


Nominated For Blog Bash:
Not Without My Chicken

I was reminded to mention that the now-infamous Chick-Fil-A laser video has been nominated for a Blog Bash Award at CPAC 2013.

Ben Howe and Chris Loesch did all the hard work.  Acting was easy; I just played myself!

Here it is again for your viewing pleasure: Not Without My Chicken.