In an interview with the Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein, Harry Stein, author of, I Can’t Believe I’m Sitting Next To A Republican, recently released in paperback, offers an anecdote which corresponds with the experience of this blogger — and many of our readers.  Answering the question, ”What is it like being a Republican in San Francisco?“, he offers

Well, as one (gay) Republican I spoke to out there put it, it’s a lot easier to be gay in San Francisco than a Republican, adding that when he came out as a Republican “friends abandoned me. I got called a fascist, traitor, crazy, insane, a racist.” In the Bizarro World that is San Francisco, fascism is always around the corner and that great bogeyman, the Christian Right, is just waiting to pounce.

Our experience has shown, it’s far easier to be openly gay in conservative circles than it is to be openly conservative in gay circles.  To be sure, we have also met many dyed-in-the-wool left-wingers who treat us with dignity despite our political differences, but there is a common thread running through the anecdotes of our interactions with our fellow gays, stories of individuals insulting, attacking or otherwise avoiding us because of our political opinions.  And they tell us as much to our faces.  Often in the nastiest terms.

Via reader Viking the Kitten.

Comes interesting news this week that an internal Democratic poll shows strong support for President Obama among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Of note, this poll was done before the repeal of DADT last month.

Some serious concerns about the interpretation of this poll. First of all, the poll was released only to the Huffington Post blog and only “on the condition that the full survey not be published.” Whenever a) the internals of a poll are not released and b) the results are sent only to a partisan publication for dissemination, it’s clear an agenda is being advanced by the numbers, that might not be borne out by the actual findings.

What’s more, in such an instance, plenty of questions arise: 64% either “approved” or “strongly approved”. So was that 10% “strongly” and 54% simply approving? Perhaps that’s splitting hairs, but it’s still significant. That the original results aren’t released suggests the depth of support might not be as impressive as its breadth. Another question: Where are these folks? There are no comparable approve/disapprove numbers from the same poll to indicate this demographic is any more supportive of Obama than the population (from which the respondents were separated as being “LGBT”) overall. Point being, poll gays and lesbians in San Francisco, you’ll likely find the same level of overwhelming support for Teh One as you would from that city’s overall population. Bottom line, this poll leaves many more questions than answers, if you’re willing to ask them.

But one great thing it does is offer up once again the opportunity to discuss the following thesis:

As more “gay” issues are settled by democratic means (as opposed to court mandates and decrees), and are therefore taken off the table, do you suppose gays and lesbians will begin to concern themselves with more important issues like the economy and national defense when it comes to picking their representatives? When HRC, Equality Matters and the slew of other left-wing advocacy groups don’t have things like DADT, ENDA, and marriage to flail about, do you think gays and lesbians will start to vote on more universal issues, and therefore gravitate more toward those who share American values of small government, low taxes, individual liberty, and a strong national defense?

To expand on the point to which Dan alludes directly below, the caricature of conservatives being ogres who simply hate gays and want to keep us all down and “would send us all to an island if they had their way” may be useful in this (and previous) day and age when some are still so animated about certain “rights”. But take away those “struggles”, and who would you vote for?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

I had an interesting conversation last night with a straight friend who reported how his girlfriend constantly complains when hangs with his male buddies.  It’s not the first time I’ve heard about(or heard) a woman upset when her significant other spends times with his same-sex peers.  And yes, I’ve heard the reverse, men who get upset with their wives/girlfriends for their girls’ night out — or similar celebrations.

Our conversation reminded me that the straight folks (at least the ones I know) in the strongest marriages all engage in activities with their same-sex peers.  One of our readers enjoys a knitting circle with her female friends while her husband goes biking with his male buddies.  It seems that same-sex social contact is essential to the strength of their marriages.

I wonder how this plays out in same-sex relationships.  I have one lesbian friend who (sometimes jokingly) laments that her wife has a second spouse — the theater.  Perhaps, that second “marriage” contributes to the strength of her first.

Let me just throw this out for discussion.  It seems pretty clear that individuals in traditional marriages benefit by balancing their monogamous connection to a member of the “other” sex with associations in groups oftentimes composed only of members of their own sex.  How then do gay couples effect a similar balance?

Almost exactly eleven yeas before Germany began World War II by invading Poland, her government, along with the governments of the United States, France, Britain, Italy, Japan and a number of other nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war.  Italy and Japan joined Germany in declaring war on the Allied nations.

You cannot outlaw war.  You cannot outlaw evil.  And much as we’ve tried, laws cannot succeed in banning human cruelty.  To be sure, they can increase its cost, hence the need for laws punishing such crimes as rape and other assaults, invasion of privacy and murder.  Once those laws are in place, we need make sure they are enforced.  More laws will not necessarily make future generations any more secure.

And it seems that whenever we hear a story that moves all of us, about the beating death of a young child or the suicide of a gay teen, various advocacy groups rush to advocate for more laws.

The problem, however, may not be the inadequacy of the laws on the books, but the cruelty of the perpetrators.

Some gay groups seem to think that additional anti-bullying policies might have prevented Tyler Clementi’s roommate from recording the young man’s private activities.  Earlier today, I received an e-mail from the folks at California Faith for Equality (CFE) urging people, among other things, to “Organize . . . turn your anger and grief into actions to improve anti-bullying practices in local classrooms, campuses and transform our congregations into accessible networks of safe spaces.”  While well-meaning, I’m not sure such practices will make much of a difference. (more…)

Now that I’ve finished “original” research for the first draft of my dissertation, I am reviewing several books on gay psychology and essays on gay relationships as I prepare to write the paper’s final chapter.  Due to the unique nature of my program, I intend to apply the insights I gained in studying Athene’s role in the lives of the men of Greek mythology to the needs of gay men today, considering particularly how feminine friendships can benefit us.

And one essay which I believe beautifully addresses gay friendships is Andrew’s piece, “If Love Were All,” in his book Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival.  In that insightful essay, he reminds us of “the need for nonfamilial and nonsexual intimacy [which] is surely uppermost in our minds, however hard it its for us to articulate it.”

As I review his essay, I’ll be seeing if he can offer any insights on the gay male “need” for a guiding female hand as we seek to find our place in the world.

One more thing to note; in that essay, Andrew addresses some issues raised (at least in my mind) by Tyler Clementi’s suicide — on the importance of friendships in helping us feel we have truly found our place.

I may or may not use his essay.  I won’t know until tomorrow when I review the underlinings I made and the notes I took when first I read it.  That said, I still recall how moving was his prose.  While we may not today share his politics, we should at least appreciate how thoughtfully he addressed an issue which merits more discusion.

Gay conservatives have been so critical of the national gay groups, in large measure because these organizations seem more beholden to the political left in general and the Democratic Party in particular than they do to their supposed constituency.  With the Service Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN) being the notable exception.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 elections, after a Republican president was elected to a second term in the White House and with Republicans making gains in both the House and the Senate, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), instead of picking someone who could work with Republicans, tapped a Democratic partisan (who had most recently worked for a group committed to electing pro-choice Democratic women) to helm its operation.

Guess they were more interested in playing to the left than to influencing the (then-)party in power.

That choice came to mind when I received a recent e-mail from the National Center for Lesbian Rights.  When I saw the name Glenn Beck in the subject line, I thought maybe they were going to praise the conservative polevangelist* for acknowledging the obvious that gay marriage isn’t a threat to the country.

Instead Executive Director Kate Kendell (she who devoted her most recent 9/11 letter to ranting against conservatives) included a piece by the group’s Federal Policy Attorney Maya Rupert on Beck’s “Cynical Invasion of D.C.”  Now the timing of his “Restoring Honor” Rally may well have been cynical, but, well, what does criticizing this timing have to do with advancing “lesbian rights”? (more…)

Twice in blogging about Ken Mehlman’s coming out, I wrote that there would be some “decent gay lefties” who would not go for this good man’s jugular, treating him instead him with decency and “dignity despite disagreeing . . .  on matters political.”

Due to my busy schedule these past few days, I haven’t been able to check the blogs as much as I would like so am grateful for readers like Eva Young of Lloydletta’s Nooz who alerted me to one leftie who has been relatively kind to Mehlman.  To be sure, John Aravosis, while refraining from attacking Mehlman personally (as have some of his left-of-center blogging colleagues), does spew a good deal of vitriol against the GOP (and engage in a bit of overheated rhetoric), he welcomes Mehlman’s coming out, saying he’s “more interested in equality than revenge.”

Now, you all know I have trouble with that term; I’m concerned more with preserving the blessings of liberty and, as many libertarian and conservative philosophers and pundits, recognize the tension between that American ideal and the notion of equality.

That said, John sees Mehlman as a potential ally in pursuing his goals and challenges his critics, “If someone can explain to me how it advances our civil rights to spurn Mehlamn’s offer of help, I’m all ears.”

I simply want my civil rights more than I want revenge. It’s the way good politics works, I think – and it’s the way politics used to work in this country – putting the potential to move forward today ahead of your legitimate anger about yesterday.

Now, I may quibble with John about our supposed lack of civil rights.  But, he is willing to put his principles over personality.  And in my book, that should count for something. (more…)

In his post on Ken Mehlman’s coming out, Don Surber, while mistakenly calling me the GayPatriot (that title belongs to my co-blogger Bruce) cites some of the bile on the left and wonders at one of the smears, “If you smear a homosexual as homophobic, does that make you homophobic?”

Yeah, the rhetoric from the left has been pretty heated.  They’ve even labeled us and other gay conservatives “quislings”!  What is it with these folks and their Nazi analogies?

Contrasting the left-wing vitriol with the more measured response from the right reminds us yet again of what we, as gay conservatives, have long experienced and what our reader Megan so perfectly articulated in a recent comment:

Just a personal observation from a heterosexual, middle-aged woman. I once worked at a restaurant with a number of conservative, gay customers. They told me that it was far more comfortable to be gay in a conservative environment than it was to be conservative in a gay environment.

Emphasis added.  I’ve experienced that at least since I’ve come out — and particularly since I’ve started blogging.  And my e-mail and our comments indicate that our readers have as well.

I caught an interesting, but, well, strange, post a reader linked on his Facebook page.  The writer, Robert Klein Engler, offered some interesting background on the Marxist roots of the gay and lesbian movement.  Now, I’m sure that the better part of the rank-and-file gay activists have little knowledge of or sympathy for the Marxian ideals which animated some of the earliest gay rights’ activists, but those leanings are there among some of the leaders.

In this post, I will not consider Engler’s read on the push for gay marriage, but encourage you to read it yourself and to let me know what you make of it.  That said, I did want to offer this paragraph where I do believe he’s onto something:

Likewise, the goal of freedom for gays that queer theory offers, dressed as it is in the feathers and sequins of Marxism-lite, is really an illusion. Instead of opening up being gay to multiple meanings, queer theory straps gays into another straitjacket, this time worn in an alternative universe of gender Gnosticism.

Now, I would put the word, “freedom,” above in quotation marks for the primary reason that, as Engler put its, it’s just an illusion.  Some activists seem to assume that “coming out” means me need not only be open and honest about our emotional/sexual inclinations, but adopt a worldview that accords with leftist principles, hence, the assumption that a gay Republicans is, by definition, self-hating.

In their view, to be a true gay, in addition to being attracted to and longing of intimacy with individuals of your own sex, but you also have to subscribe to leftist political principles.

More on this anon (I hope).

I cannot go any longer without posting on Greg Gutfeld’s inspired idea.  This has been a HOT topic on Twitter this week among the conservative set.  Liberals are cricketly-silent (*chirp, chirp*) about this idea of full tolerance.  Greg was on Glenn Beck last night to fully discuss his business proposal.

“If New York is to accept the mosque, the mosque has to accept the gay bar.” – Greg Gutfeld

For what it’s worth… here were some of my ideas on Twitter Monday night for names of the gay bar next to the 9/11 Mosque:

• Charlie Crist’s Chocolate Factory
• Ali’s Aqua Queer Bar (say it fast!)
• The Noose and Stone
• Af-MAN-istan’s
• Fatwa Follies (a piano bar)
• Shock & Raw
• Mecca-lecka Hi Mecca Heiney Hoes

NorthDallasThirty had one I enjoyed: Crotch Bomber. 

And my favorite that I cannot take credit for thinking of:  Sodom Hussein

My great Twitter comrade-in-arms, Kurt Schlichter, has some more great names!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As soon as I finish this post, I’ll head downtown to begin volunteering at Outfest, LA’s gay and lesbian film festival.  This will be my tenth consecutive year working for the organization.

I have been such a regular volunteer for this festival for a great variety of reasons — even if I sometimes question some of the choices of the programming department — including an overall support of the organization’s mission (I believe film can be an important vehicle to promote a greater understanding of gay men and lesbians) and an appreciation for their attitude toward volunteers.

This may sound like hyperbole, but it’s true:  I have never volunteered for a gay organization that has shown greater respect for its volunteers.  I can no longer count the times I have been thanked for my efforts.  Having supervised volunteers for nine years, I strive to express the same gratitude.  Outfest allows volunteers to see films for free (on a space available basis) and holds annual cookouts, both before and after the festival, to thank returning volunteers and the current year’s volunteers, respectively.

Recently discussing the way Outfest treats its volunteers with a friend on the left, also enthusiastic about the festival, he too contrasted the organization with other gay groups and suggested that some have this kind of expectation of activism, that they believe gay individuals “owe” it to the community to give of their time.  Thus, they take our efforts for granted, with an acquaintance reporting that when he recently volunteered at the LA banquet of a national gay organization, his supervisor wouldn’t allow him a bathroom break.

It’s as if they feel we should be honored to be able to volunteer our time.

So, once again, kudos to Outfest for the gratitude it shows to its volunteers.  May other gay organizations follow its example.

One reason I have a great deal of difficulty taking seriously most (but not all) gay marriage activists (particularly those of my sex) is that they are loath to discuss the emotional significance/meaning of the institution.  And as I study male psychology, I wonder that it often takes a woman (or a child, or combination thereof) to activate the nurturing aspects of our psyche that seem to come more naturally to women, aspects essential for developing enduring relationships.

To be sure, there are some men who seem to have already internalized those “feminine” qualities.

Several years back, I had an e-mail exchange with a leading advocate for state recognition of same-sex marriage.  He practically bristled at my questions about his failure to address monogamy in the conversation on expanding the definition of this ancient institution.  He simply could not (refused to?) see the link between sexual fidelity and emotional intimacy, how that ideal deepens the bond between the two individuals in a marriage.

Indeed, at those meetings on gay marriage, I found that those most willing to point out that monogamy was an (essential) aspect of marriage were (almost*) always women.

Look, I realize these thoughts may seem kind of random, but because of several serendipitous circumstances on my cross country journey coupled with thoughts about my dissertation — and how Athena’s relationship with Tiresias (this paragon of wisdom to the ancient Greeks being the only individual who had lived as both a man an a woman) fits in — has got me thinking about this yet again.

I fear sometimes we men don’t work at developing emotional relationships with other men.  That so visual and physical is our sex drive, we don’t want to consider the emotional consequences of infidelity.**  This is not to say that men don’t achieve emotional intimacy, indeed, many do.  But, they’re not the ones at the forefront of the movement for state recognition of same-sex marriage. (more…)

As I’ve been traveling cross country, I have not been able to address (or able to address only in a cursory manner) many of the stories which have set the blogosphere aflame.  From my readers, I learn that some left-wing gay bloggers have gotten their panties all in a bundle (apologies for the indecorous language) over the fact that Sir Elton John sang at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding.

Now, I’ve heard it said that the conservative talk show host is anti-gay, yet having listened to him on occasion for the past 18 years, I can’t recall hearing the talker toss one anti-gay barb.  Maybe I missed something, but have heard the accusation only from those whose credibility I question (i.e., liberals with an axe to grind or a narrative to peddle).

Citing Zev Chafets’s new book (of which I have a review copy which I’ve been trying to get to on this trip, Allapundit observes that “Limbaugh’s view on gays is a tad more nuanced than the left would like to believe.”  (Via Instapundit.)

Seems they’ve determined he must needs be anti-gay because he’s an outspoken conservative.  (To some on the left, the two (invariably) go hand in hand.)

The blogger offers:

Via Mediaite, a rebuttal to lefties and gay-rights activists speculating that the only reason a guy who’s in a civil union would play the wedding of an alleged neo-Hitlerian gay-hater is for a $1 million payday. (Sample quote: “Isn’t that a bit like Beyoncé entertaining at a KKK rally?”) Two things. First, Kelly quotes Elton as having said that he’s “all about tearing down walls and building bridges,” which is true to form. 

Emphasis added.  

Gay rights activists could benefit from this type of bridge building to the right.   After all, one of the greatest congregations of people who oppose increased social acceptance of gay people (not to mention the left-wing agenda of the national gay groups) is found on the right.

You can’t change minds unless you build bridges to them.

Via a comment caught in our spam filter (“since rescued), I come across a new gay blog with a great name which applies to your humble bloggers as well as many of our readers: The Heterodox Homosexual.

Wish I’d've thunk of that one!

Now this fellow makes clear that he’s not a gay conservative (here as well), but he does offer some perspectives in line with things we’ve said here.  Having perused his blog, I will say that while I don’t always share his perspective, I do appreciate his insights.  He is truly heterodox in the sense that he didn’t offer the groupthink mindlessly repeated on the gay left even if he occasionally borrows their lingo.

And I like the way he approaches the conversation on gay marriage:

Our relationships have worth that doesn’t need affirmation from big government. Also, government has neither the power nor the moral right to make people like us; rather, it can and should give us equal freedom. . . .

The magical piece of paper is neither necessary nor sufficient for a lasting, committed relationship. Some same-sex couples have been together for decades without it. Some straight marriages have gone down the toilet almost immediately. 

Obsessed with that magical piece of paper, one left-wing blogger could learn a thing or two from this guy.  

Keep an eye on this heterodox homosexual.  He definitely has something to add to the conversation.

While Nick and I disagree on “Draw Mohammed Day,” we do agree in wondering at the “need” of gay activists (and their acolytes) to label everyone who disagrees with some form of the word, “hate.”

And yet, these very people harbor the greatest degree of animus against conservatives, Republicans and, well, anyone who disagrees with them, you know the people they smear as haters.*

Projection anyone? (more…)

In the past few days, Nick and I have come to (metaphorical) blows over our difference son “Draw Mohammed Day.”  We did have a good conversation last night over the phone where we resolved, with each making a bit of sacrifice, to handle the situation as we did yesterday.

And since I think Nick is a swell fellow, when, before my drive went south (metaphorically not geographically) today, I called him to share an insight I was sure he would enjoy.  (It’s always nice to agree than disagree with your friends.)  Because of the connection, he didn’t hear everything I had to say, but he did get the gist of it.

So, now comfortably ensconced in my hotel, let me elaborate.  As our readers know, I take offense at Draw Mohammed Day because it gratuitously mocks religion — just as I have long taken offensive at the juvenile antics of the gay men who style themselves the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” dressing up as nuns and rollerblading around on Pride Day.

I wonder why is it that all too many in our community condone (celebrate even) this mockery of the Catholic faith, yet remain silent on a faith which persecutes people like us?  Why don’t we those who would mock Catholicism (whose extremists may judge homosexuality harshly), but refrain from mocking Islam (whose extremists murder homosexuals)?

When I set to write my post last night on Constance McMillen in order to distinguish my view of the situation from the perspective Nick offered, I did so with the sense that the young woman had done nothing wrong.  I confirmed that “sense” when I read various articles (and opinion pieces) on the whole hullabaloo.

She didn’t do anything wrong.

The worst that she can be accused of is poor taste — and being a teenager.  But, even the great hero Beowulf acknowledged impetuous behavior when he was a youth.  As to her poor taste, women just don’t look good in tuxes; and she wanted to wear one to her prom.  But, then again, men look terrible in lime green tuxes and how many high school seniors have worn just such an outfit to theirs?

As to her accepting invitations to appear at various gay functions, well, we may not like the groups sponsoring those functions, but, well, she is a teenager.  And what teenager, in this culture, wouldn’t jump at the chance to become a sudden celebrity?

The real issue here is that some wish to use this situation to show a society where gay teens have it pretty rough.  And, to be sure, while things have greatly improved for gay people over the years, it’s always going to be difficult to be different, particularly in a high school environment where there’s so much pressure to conform.  But, we shouldn’t let the poor treatment this young woman suffered blind us to the improved situation for gay teens at high schools across the country, many of which allow students to bring same-sex dates to their high school’s spring formal.

Usually, on this blog, each blogger posts a piece without consulting the others.  On occasion, Nick, Bruce or I may run an idea by the others before publishing it.  On at least one occasion, I have chosen not to run with a piece (I had written) after showing it to Bruce.  On other occasions, I have run posts by friends or readers before posting them.  On some occasions, I have edited them as per their suggestions.  On others, I have not published the pieces at all.

Had Nick run his piece, The Gay Left’s Newest Member, by me, I would have suggested he not post it. In a way, I see what he’s getting at, how Constance McMillen becomes the latest “victim” of American society feted by the gay groups to promote their agenda.

That said, I do see where she’s coming from.  (I appreciate Nick’s clarification; she’s not the one to blame here.)

And I don’t think it’s right for a public school to prevent her from taking the date of her choice to its prom.  After the “American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi . . . got involved, claiming the school’s policy regarding dates was discriminatory and violated McMillen’s constitutional rights . . ., the local school board decided to call the whole thing off.

Some parents then organized an alternative prom.  According to the Advocate, to “prevent Constance McMillen from bringing a female date to [that] prom, the teen was sent to a ‘fake prom’ while the rest of her class partied at a secret location“.  That was a cheap and mean stunt, but it was privately done.  By challenging the parents’ actions in court, activists would make the case for forcing Keith Olbermann off the air.  His show is little more than a series of cheap and mean stunts.

All that said, I just couldn’t muster the energy to blog about this until I felt it necessary to distinguish my viewpoint from that Nick’s.  My reaction to the kerfuffle was that the hyperventilating on some gay blogs and from some gay organizations was a bit overblown.  It was as if a new Dark Age had dawned in America.

But, if this were a new Dark Age, then why all this hullabaloo over McMillen’s exclusion?  To a large extent, we see this hullabaloo because of the changes taking place across the country.  Back in 1980, it made national news that a student in a Rhode Island high school student was taking a same-sex date to the prom.  Now, it makes national news when a Mississippi girl can’t take a same-sex date to the prom. (more…)

Thanks to VtheK for the tip.  I believe this story speaks for itself.

The death, of an AIDS-related illness, of a 25-year-old barebacking porn star is the latest twist in several episodes that have roiled the adult entertainment industry in recent years.

Chad Noel’s March 17 death was reported on at GayPornGossip on March 26. The posting read, “Chad Noel age 25, a former ’twink genre’ gay porn performer using the stage names of Donny Price & Craven Cox passed away in New York City, on March 17, 2010 following a brief illness associated with complications of HIV.” The article also noted that Noel had worked for an adult entertainment company that makes videos of men barebacking–a euphemism for unprotected anal sex. Noel had also performed under the names Craven Cox and Donny Price. Noel was a native of Laramie, Wyoming, the town outside of which Matthew Shepard was beaten and left to die.

I presume the gay leftist community will immediately rally behind safer sex efforts as a response to Mr. Noel’s passing equal to their rallies against hate crimes.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

About the “Uncle Tom” slur hurled at African-American Tea Party protesters, James Taranto writes:

No white American today suffers the indignity of being labeled a “traitor” to his race; the supposedly liberal assumption is that blacks, and only blacks, are expected to think a certain way because of the color of their skin.

Sound familiar?  To gay conservatives, it should.  Seems, at one point or another, we’ve all encountered the supposedly liberal assumption that gay people are expected to think a certain way because of our sexual orientation.

(H/t:  Instapundit.)