Gay Patriot Header Image

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.

Republican Pennsylvania legislator comes out

A Republican becomes the first first openly gay state representative in the KeyStone State:

State Rep. Mike Fleck (R-Huntingdon) publicly acknowledged Saturday that he is gay, making him the first openly gay lawmaker in Pa. and the only* currently sitting openly gay Republican state legislator in the entire country.

. . . .

“Coming out is hard enough, but doing it in the public eye is definitely something I never anticipated,” he said. “I’m still the exact same person and I’m still a Republican and, most importantly, I’m still a person of faith trying to live life as a servant of God and the public. The only difference now is that I will also be doing so as honestly as I know how.”

He said his party affiliation remains strong.

“The Republican party is all about the government needing to stay out of people’s lives,” Fleck said. “I’m not a one-issue person and it’s not a one-issue party.”

Well said, Representative Fleck. Wish more people understood this about gay Republicans. Our political calculus doesn’t revolve around our sexuality nor does the agenda of our party.

Folks at the Advocate would be wise to learn from this gay elected official — and to watch how his party receives him.

SiriusXM Gay Leftist Host Michelangelo Signorile
Issues Apology, Of Sorts

Here is Bully Signorile’s attempt at apologizing, printed in full.

On Wednesday I challenged a gay caller, Wess, who expressed his support for Mitt Romney. While expressing the thought that any gay person who votes for Romney is doing himself harm, I began an analogy in the wrong place. After the caller said he voted for Romney, I said he should just get some arsenic, make a potion, and take it, which would be more painless. Not because I thought he should kill himself—I do not think gay Romney supporters should kill themselves—but because voting for someone who is committed to undermining your rights is a self-destructive behavior.

Any gay person who votes for Romney is undermining his own life, his own rights, and the lives and rights of all other LGBT people. And let’s be clear: It is Romney, with his bigoted positions (“Some gays are actually having children. It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact.”),who feeds a culture of hate that leads to gay teen suicides.
 
At first, I was criticized by angry, sometimes vile Romney supporters on Twitter while Obama supporters on the show and on Twitter seemed to get the point I was trying to make and defended me. I was defensive initially too, including yesterday on the show, pointing out that I was using a metaphor. We can get lost in the partisan fog of war during a heated election battle.
 
But after talking with friends over dinner last night, and after reading Andrew Sullivan’s take this morning, I can now see that my statement was not just jarring but offensive—certainly in the current climate of gay teen suicides. Sullivan is not some far-right gay Romney supporter; indeed, Sullivan and I are on the same side in the current political climate. We both support Obama and, contrary to Sullivan’s rather silly characterization of me as “far left,” he and I are actually in the same place on many issues these days, even including the role of ACT UP and direct action. We certainly agree on the issues of bullying and teen suicide, issues about which I’ve been very outspoken and passionate. If Sullivan didn’t get the point I was trying to make then I must have made it very badly.
 
I’m not making excuses, but sometimes, when you’re on the radio for four hours a day, things come out backwards. Live talk radio is essentially thinking out loud and sometimes our thoughts come out garbled. Again, I’m not making excuses, and certainly listeners have a right to expect that someone who hosts a radio show is going to be a little better at thinking out loud than the average person. And I like to think that I usually am. But it seems that all my engines weren’t firing this week. Like a lot of New Yorkers, I was operating on little sleep, with hurricane fatigue, and displaced family and friends. It was a recipe for total botch up. And I botched this one.
 
My apologies to Wess, and to my listeners.

 Posted by Signorile at9:26 AM

My shorter translation of Signorile’s statement: “Gay Romney supporters are still scum and should die, I was just tired and got caught on tape.  I’m not making excuses, but actually I am.  Also, I was ashamed into apologizing by Andrew Sullivan of all people.”

My longer take on this is that Signorile got his ass chewed out by his bosses at SiriusXM yesterday.  He was awfully arrogant and defiant towards me on Twitter during the time he was on the air.  But suddenly about 5pm, he got silent.  I think The Man who signs his check got involved.

There is no doubt that this is another win for the conservative blogosphere!  Signorile has always been like this.  I know, since he has treated me to the same treatment in the past and I was an invited guest.  So he is “sorry” because he got caught.  Typical progressive bullshit apology.

I have $100 sitting on my desk and will give it to the next person who documents that Signorile’s treatment of gay conservatives hasn’t changed.  The bet is for the next 30 days.

In the meantime, thanks very much to our reader Tim for exposing Signorile’s hate.  I will be providing Tim with a gift from our blog as well.

Now you may discuss.

UPDATE from comments on my $100 wager: 

No, Paul.  I have $100 on my desk for audio proof that Signorile STILL berates gay conservatives.  He will not change.  Maybe today or tomorrow, but he is a mean spirited radical.

He will spout off and demean and bully a gay conservative.  I have $100 waiting here for the proof that his apology was bullshit.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

How a conservative talker responds to gay caller

Contrast how a gay-left wing radio host handles a gay conservative caller with how Rush Limbaugh responds to a similar type of caller.

Rush doesn’t lambaste this man even as he says he supports gay marriage.

And the conservative talker concludes the conversation, saying, “I’m glad you called.”

(H/t Breitbart via Bruce.)

BULLETIN: KYLE WOOD APPEARS TO RECANT STORY

Just reading this now:

According to the Madison Police Department, Kyle Wood has recanted his story about being assaulted in his home on the morning of Wednesday, October 24th. Wood had told officers and reporters (including me) that he had been strangled and beaten, and thought it was because he was a gay man working for a Republican candidate for Congress.

I knew we should have been more skeptical. It was my hunch at the start.

I personally apologize for not waiting longer.

I’m sure Dan will say more as well.

-Bruce

GOProud and Gay Republicans:
Bruce Carroll Wants to Change the Notion
That There Are No Gay Conservatives

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:33 pm - October 25, 2012.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons),Gay Politics

Eh, I hate to have a headline with my name in it. So I just cut/pasted the one from PolicyMic that wrote the article about me today.

Bruce Carroll has had quite the successful career, especially for someone who is still in his mid 40′s. Carroll was elected as the youngest borough councilman in the state of Pennsylvania at age 21 back in 1992. Since then, it’s only been an upward spiral. After working for 15 years in government relations in the biotech industury and health care policy, he went on to become an incredibly successful blogger, with over 100,000 people visiting his site each month.

Today, he is the president and Founder of Patriot Consulting, an agency that was created to help small businesses and organizations with growing concerns about the impact of government regulations on their day-to-day operations.

There is however, a twist. Carroll is currently on the board of directors for GOProud, which today is the one of the leading advocacy groups for gay and straight conservatives in America. When coupled with his work at his blog, GayPatriot, Carroll has had an incredible impact when it comes to breaking down the stereotypes of what it means to be gay in America.

For many millennials, the concept of a gay, conservative activist probably sounds like something out of a science-fiction movie. Thankfully for those individuals and others, I was lucky enough to get a few minutes to ask Carroll some questions that I feel will shed some light on what it means to be a gay conservative in America.

But now you have to read it to find out what the questions and answers were!

For the record, that wasn’t the photo I gave them… and yes, it is about 5 years old.  Oh, and I hate all photos taken of me. I look better in three dimensions. LOL

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

“They hate me because I am a conservative who happens to be gay.”

Twice in the past twenty-four hours or so, I have received reports via Facebook of gay men coming out for Romney, only to encounter attacks from their gay peers.

People “are surprised”, one wrote, as if writing about my own initial experiences coming out conservative, “when I say I’m a republican. They ask me how I can be a Gay Jew and a republican at the same time.” The other had a “Question for you Dan! Why do LGBT people hate conservative LGBT people … I have so many haters right now!”

Yes, why do they hate?

“Let’s be honest,” the second man wrote

. . . the left doesn’t hate me because I am mean or brash or too aggressive – the same label can be applied to many of my critics. No, the left hates me because I have the audacity to stand up to them. They hate me because I am a conservative who happens to be gay. They hate me because I won’t be bullied by them. They hate me because I have dared to wander off the liberal plantation, because I refuse to play the victim card, and because I have rejected their failed big government, single-issue, tunnel-visioned agenda.”

He concluded,  “They hate me because I am a conservative who happens to be gay.”

Upon reading the first draft of this post, the first correspondent disagreed with the language used by the second:

my frieends and I don’t hate each other they just become another person when they find out that I am a Republican. (more…)

“Let’s Not Get All Crazy, Now!”
OR “Bruce’s Rebuttal to Dan’s Log Cabin Post”

Dan wrote a post the other day reminding our readers that while he is the mainstay of content here at the blog, I have become “the Twitter guy.” He also underscored and that we are two different people though we agree a lot.

Today, we disagree!

I appreciate Dan’s enthusiasm with the Mitt Romney “qualified” endorsement by Log Cabin Republicans, but I’d like to throw some very cold water onto the parade and express my own views.

First, as always, I fully disclose that I am a founding board member of GOProud — a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights.

I supported the creation of GOProud specifically because Log Cabin Republicans had become a spokestool of the Gay Left. I’m glad that some are excited by their more recent move to embrace Republican candidates, but that hardly makes LCR a “conservative group.”

To the contrary, from the moment this blog was founded in 2004, I have documented the close ties that Log Cabin Republicans had, and still maintains, with Tim Gill — an ultra-left wing progressive activists whose Gill Foundation is a documented recipient of grants from George Soros.

So while I appreciate Dan’s nostalgia for the ideal of wanting Log Cabin Republicans to be what he and I hoped it would be — the fact remains it is not.

This endorsement of Mitt Romney is about as useful as handleless screwdriver. Sure looks like it will do the job, but you will never get anything done. That’s what Log Cabin promised in their “endorsement” — nothing. No action. Nada. Zip. Sitting on hands. Kaput. Zero.

In fact, the truth is at least one Log Cabin Board Member was threatening to quit if Log Cabin even brought the Romney vote to the board. Further, two local Log Cabin chapters urged their national board NOT to endorse Romney.

So while Dan has an affinity with Clarke Cooper that I don’t understand, the Log Cabin board are still bought and paid for shills of Tim Gill.

This is how Log Cabin’s “qualified endorsement” is being reported by the Associated Press.

A lengthy explanation released by Log Cabin Republicans under the banner “We Are Americans First” was part endorsement, part rebuke to a Republican Party whose standard-bearers the group said “appear to be caught up in an outdated culture war.” The group argued that Americans of all sexual orientations have suffered financially under President Barack Obama, and while Romney may not share all of their views, he could be worse.

“Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum, and Paul Ryan is not Michele Bachmann. Otherwise, our decision would have been different,” the group said.

Damn. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Also, Log Cabin went out of its way to say it will not lift a finger to assist electing Mitt Romney. So what’s the point?

Far from reaching across differences to align with the conservative movement to defeat Barack Obama, Log Cabin has merely re-ignited the culture war meme that they claim they abhor. Hypocrites.

Let’s cut to the chase, the Log Cabin endorsement of Romney might as well be three words: I Love Lamp.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Next gay Congressman from Mass likely to be a Republican

In just a few months, gay Americans will no longer have to experience the embarrassment of having a mean-spirited liberal as the most prominent gay Congressman.  With the retirement of Barney Frank, more pleasantly disposed gay Democrats, like Colorado’s Jared Polis, should come to the fore.

And while the unhappy Mr. Frank will no longer be representing Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives, it seems increasingly likely that another gay man — and one with a much better understanding of the way the world works and a keen appreciation of the burdens the government places upon individuals — will be representing the Bay State in Washington., D.C.

It seems increasingly likely that Richard Tisei, the only congressional challenger I have officially endorsed this year, appears poised to oust Democrat John Tierney in the state’s 6th Congressional District.

The National Journal ranked the race as “the 11th most likely to turn over among the 435 seats in the House” and” the Rothenberg Political Report, another nationally regarded nonpartisan observer, tipped the race to ‘Lean Republican’ from ‘Toss-up.’”  That’s good news for Massachusetts, for gay Americans in general and gay Republicans in particular.

His campaign could always use a few extra bucks to make sure they get his supporters to the polls next month.  Join me in supporting this good man.

What conservative blog readers really think of gays & GayPatriot

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:45 pm - October 20, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

When I alerted Jim Hoft that one of our critics had made insinuations about his “feelings” toward us, he thanked us in post.  We are most grateful for the acknowledgement.  The feedback from his reputedly rabid right-wing readers helps show just how far off our critic was by suggesting that our fellow conservatives really don’t think very highly of us.

Truth Teller wrote:

My wife and I were out last night with our very close, gay friends…we go out with them all the time.

Guess what? They are as conservative as they come (fiscally, of course).

Adam said that, “The only people I’ve ever known to use the word ‘faggot’ were leftists. Ironic.”  And Buffalobob thanked me . . .

. . . for being the forthright man you are. We can agree or disagree in our discussions. That is what freedom is. That is what our first amendment guarantees us. Those who try to shout us down, accuse us of racism, accuse us of being intolerant, demand that we follow in lockstep with their ideology are everything and more that we are falsely accused of.

Opable quipped that “Dan’s misguided poster thought Jim was a Pharisee…found out Jim is actually a Good Samaritan.

Seems that those who comment at Jim’s site have much in common with the bloggers whom they follow, perhaps opposed to state recognition of gay marriage, but in favor of treating gay individuals with dignity.

Richard Tisei for Congress

Earlier today, the Boston Herald reporter that, in the battle for Massachusetts’s 6th Congressional District, Republican Richard Tisei has opened up a 6-point lead over 7-term incumbent John Tierney.  37 percent favor the challenger with only 31 percent pulling for the incumbent. “Thirty percent said they were undecided.”

It’s bad news when any incumbent polls below 50 percent, but with Tierney nearly twenty points below that threshold, signs are good that he won’t be returning to Washington next fall.  His loss would not only mean the loss of a second Democratic seat from the Bay State*, it would also mean that Massachusetts would still be sending a gay man to Washington, but this time, a Republican favoring small government rather than a mean-spirited Democrat voting, as if by rote, for nearly every bill expanding the size — and scope — of the federal government.

On the issues, Tisei is exactly where we would like him, a fiscal conservative concerned that our “economy is being strangled by unprecedented debt, spending, and over-regulation.”  This Republican knows that “Government does not create wealth or jobs in this country”:

We need to strengthen the conditions that lead to entrepreneurial growth and jobs for our people. Right now, job creators remain unsure of future tax rates and massive regulatory burdens coming from Washington. Our experience of the last 3 years makes clear that such an approach doesn’t work. “Obamacare” is but one of many massive new burdens being imposed on job creators. In 2011 alone, the Obama Administration proposed 219 new regulations, each of which would cost $100 million or more to implement. Job creators simply cannot move under such over-regulation.

Sounds like my kind of guy.  And that’s why I’m endorsing Richard Tisei for the United States Congress.

Don’t let that poll give you a false sense of comfort.  It shows that Tisei has a good chance to win, but that he still needs make his case to undecided voters.  If he can get his message out, he can convince those who have yet to make up their minds that he has the better plan to promote economic growth and encourage opportunity.  Join me in supporting this good man.

Wouldn’t it be great to have an openly gay, fiscally conservative Republican representing Massachusetts in the United States Congress?

* (more…)

Today Is Five Million Day!

Lookie there at the bottom of the page! We made it.

5,000,000th visitor arrived this morning!!

So we celebrated our 8th Blogoversary & 5 Million the same month!!

My sincere thanks to Dan for holding down the fort here for most of the 8 years while I toiled in corporate America. And now I’m mostly on Twitter… so I’m very grateful for Dan and his work here.

And also I’m glad Nick is posting again from Colorado!!

Most of all, we are very thankful to all of our devoted readers of the GayPatriot community. You men & women rock!!!

Big hugs to all!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

20120921-122123.jpg

David Lampo on the GOP & “gay rights”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:58 pm - August 23, 2012.
Filed under: Freedom,Gay America,Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

Reader MV passed along this interview David Lampo gave on Republicans and gay rights:

Having received a review copy of David’s book, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights, earlier in the summer, I read it and had mixed feelings. Perhaps, I should take the time to write a more formal review.

Lampo does a good job of debunking notions of anti-gay attitudes in the Tea Party, but at times, repeats the gay left narrative about Republican intolerance.

That said, if you have a moment, give the video a watch.

Gay Republican and Conservative Groups Embrace Ryan Selection

Back in the 1990s, nearly a full year lapsed between Republican Congressman and candidates signing the Contract with America and Log Cabin endorsing that document promising government reform.  The prominence Republicans gave to the Contract returning its focus to real reform and fiscal responsibility.  Having gained such prominence from attacking the GOP in 1992, the then-leadership of the ostensibly Republican organization was wary of embracing the GOP, even when it was not focusing on social issues.

How thing have changed.  Two days after presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced his selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, the current Executive Director of Log Cabin, wrote in the Daily Caller that

Congressman Paul Ryan is a strong choice for vice president, and his addition to the GOP ticket will help Republican candidates up and down the ballot. As chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of the Republican “Path to Prosperity,” nobody is more qualified to articulate a conservative economic vision to restore the American economy and stimulate job creation.

Unfortunately, Cooper used his opinion piece to make the case for statist legislation, but the fact remains that he has openly embraced the “conservative economic vision” that Ryan has promoted.  He even indicated on Facebook that he “liked” Paul Ryan for VP:

Clarke’s willingness to champion Republican politicians like Ryan and real conservative reforms has served to distinguish him from some of his predecessors. And Clarke is not the only right-of-center gay leader to herald Romney’s pick. Shortly after the Republican announced his choice, GOProud’s Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia called Ryan “a bold and inspired pick“: (more…)

Dodging Lasers To Get Chicken

My sincere apologies that it appears the last place this video is posted is at my very own blog!

My intent was to get this posted here sooner, but it just wasn’t possible until this morning. The video was shot on Wednesday, but it wasn’t cleared by the powers-that-be until Thursday morning. Well, I was driving from Charlotte to Jacksonville, FL all day Thursday. (I’m in JAX for the RedState Gathering…. more on that later)

So here it is, members of the GayPatriot community — my trip to Chik-Fil-A on Wednesday…

YouTube Preview Image

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Where is GLAAD when media is used to demean a gay Republican?

On its web-page, GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) claims to “hold the media accountable for the words and images they produce. When media is used as a platform to defame and stereotype LGBT people, GLAAD takes action.”  Apparently this standard applies only to those who use media to defame and stereotype gay people of a certain political persuasion.

When individuals use media to defame gay Republicans, GLAAD takes no action.  Yesterday, when a BuzzFeed reporter said openly gay Republican Richard Grenell’s “tweets often appear to reveal insecurities about your own masculinity“, GLAAD did not call on the reporter to apologize.*

As Grenell told Breitbart’s John Nolte, “Groups like GLAAD are no longer effective because they stay silent when the left attacks gay conservatives.

GLAAD is not the only outfit to make light of the tweet.  Nolte reminds us that “BuzzFeed Politics’ Editor-In-Chief, Ben Smith (pictured), has only commented about his employee’s behavior on Twitter with jokes and dismissive comments.”  Perhaps, you might say that’s his style, to engage in such banter.

Nolte reminds us that when conservatives directed anti-gay attacks on Grenell, “BuzzFeed Politics found that troubling enough for a feature piece critical of Mitt Romney.”

And HRC, the outfit which blew a gasket when a Republican politician failed to speak out after her daughter used the word “faggot” on Facebook remains silent when a reporter suggests a gay Republican has insecurities about his masculinity.

* (more…)

Does intolerance of gay Republicans cause some erstwhile homocons to change* their political views?

Every now and again, you meet a gay ex-Republican who tells you that he left the GOP because of the party’s intolerance.

Events this past week, however, have made it increasingly apparent that such folks left not because of the GOP’s supposed intolerance, but because of that they experienced in the gay community.  They were simply tired of being ostracized — and otherwise marginalized — for their political views.
——-

*(or hide)

—–

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Redneck Fag answers the title question in the affirmative:  “It happened to me when I was living in San Francisco during the Reagan years but it didn’t last long. I soon saw the problem: wanting to conform and be popular . . . .”

That does seem to be the problem.