All too many left-of-center gays have long had a crush on Barack Obama because of that (D) after his name.  And they’ve just been looking for a reason to justify their love.

And in the past twenty-four hours, our gay peers have been exulting all over Facebook how wonderful Obama is while the heads of various gay organizations call the moment historic.  ”Where Were You When Obama Made History?” gushes the National Center for Lesbian Rights Kate Kendell:

Where were you when you first heard?

I was in front of Lincoln Center (I’m in New York City this week for a meeting with other LGBT civil rights attorneys from across the country) when NCLR Deputy Director Arcelia Hurtado screamed, “He did it!”

I turned around and said, “What?” To which she replied, “Obama came out in support of marriage!” We both screamed and hugged, teary eyed. The New Yorkers walking past us didn’t care. But we knew that this was a historic and indelible moment.

At the end of her e-mail and blog post, Kate helpfully includes a button encouraging people to Donate to her outfit. A couple years back, she used her 9/11 letter to rant against right-wingers.

History?  History?  All we get is a man making a statement.  And despite the office he holds, he is putting forward no actual policies that might effect real change.  These people are just so googly-eyed about empty words from a man who specializes in such rhetoric.  Guess that’s the way it is when your schoolgirl crush blows you a kiss.

Some folks just seem to need validation from the government.  And alas, sometimes it seems that’s what the gay marriage movement is all about.  (Yet, through the writings of Jonathan Rauch as well as from the experiences of myriad gay couples, we know it’s about more than just a piece of paper or an anodyne word from a pandering politician.)

At 0:49 below, Audrey Hepburn demonstrates how gay Americans should have responded to President Obama’s statement on gay marriage yesterday:

Like everything with Obama, all we get is “words, words, words.”

This is not just a gay conservative talking.  Several voices on the left have found that there’s not much there there in the president’s sudden shift on same-sex marriage.  At the Gawker, John Cook calls the statement a “cowardly cop-out”:  ”it seems fairly clear from the network’s coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry.”

At the far left magazine Mother Jones, Adam Serwer reports that his colleague . . .

. . . David Corn spoke with an administration source and asked whether the president recognized gay marriage as a right. The official replied, “He has always said that it is a state issue, and he’s not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment, but he’s not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states.”

Emphasis added.  He’s not bringing up legislation?!?  And all my left-leaning gay friends on Facebook are so giddy about the statement; Obama’s just leaving it to the states.

Shouldn’t they be insisting that he show us he loves us by putting some political capital on the line and backing legislation to make federal recognition of gay relationships a reality?

He’s like the guy who tells his beloved how much he loves her, tells her wants to get married, but refuses to buy a ring or set a date.

It doesn’t matter what he does or hasn’t done; it does matter that he likes us.

Yesterday, when I announced my determination to slow down the pace of blogging this week, I had intended to post only a handful of pieces on gay issues, first to indication my opposition to North Carolina’s Amendment One, then to offer a followup on the Grenell Matter, noting how that latter showed not the anti-gay animus that some Democratic partisans and gay activists were determined to find in the GOP, but the party’s own awkwardness on gay issues (for more on that, just read the passage I quoted in this post from the Huffington Post‘s Jon Ward).

Where the presumptive Republican nominee has handled social conservative concerns about a gay staffer in a most awkward manner, his Democratic counterpart has shown incredible “cowardice,” as one blogger put it, in handling the issue of gay marriage.  Bruce blogged that Obama “stepped in it.”  Others have been even less forgiving.

The real problem is that Obama didn’t try to find some sort of compromise in the first two years of his term when he had overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.  Had he had some significant political savvy, he might, for example, have sat down with gay leaders and pointed to the passage of Prop 8 in California, saying that it wouldn’t be prudent to push forward on gay marriage per se, but would instead focus on civil unions (touting such legislation as the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517), a bill in the 111th Congress “which would grant domestic partners access to federal employee health care benefits“); he would have been wise to ask these leaders to identify key Republicans (e.g. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the House and Susan Collins in the Senate) who would be willing to help spearhead such efforts.

The Democrat would then be able to point to efforts (likely successful) he had made to advance the cause of same-sex couples.  There might not be a public outcry over gay marriage had he had accomplished something in terms of federal recognition of same-sex civil unions, even if just for government employees. (more…)

Let me begin by reminding you of some important facts.  Democrat Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, with strong support from gay groups, including many supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage.

When he took office, the president’s party, the Democratic, enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  From July 7, 2009 until February 4, 2010, that majority was filibuster-proof, that is, Senate Democrats didn’t need a single Republican vote to invoke cloture; they could vote on any item they wanted to.  Said legislative Democrats never voted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or even to pass a federal civil unions bill.  They only got their act together to vote on repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) after the election, but before the swearing in, of a Republican Congress in November 2010.

In short, Democrats in the 111th Congress had the chance to act on issues of concern to gay Americans, but failed to do so.

Now to the question.  Earlier today, Jennifer Rubin asked, “Are gay-marriage advocates being taken as fools?”

On “Meet the Press,” Vice President Joe Biden said he’d be “comfortable with gay marriage,” an odd formulation for an important matter of public policy. (This is truly liberalism’s triumph of good intentions over actions.)

. . .

This is becoming the proverbial Lucy and the football. One wonders how often pro-gay-marriage activists, like poor Charlie Brown, are going to fall for this stuff.

. . . .

First, forking over lots of money gives you access; threatening to cut it off gets you attention. The leverage is with the gay community, whose financial and electoral power is considerable. But as long as the campaign takes gay voters (like Jews, Hispanics and union members) for granted, there is no reason for President Obama to move on this before the election.

Maybe had HRC not been so quick to endorse Obama, they might have been able to extract some concessions from the Democrat.  It seems though that the heads of that and other gay groups would rather be loved by the Democrats than see legislation passed recognizing our relationships.

UPDATE:  Deborah Kerr reminds us (@ 2:35 below) how HRC treats Obama: (more…)

Due to the bigoted, bullying, anti-Christian tirade of the Obama Administration’s partner in “anti-bullying”….

…this blog has had its highest traffic in 2 years.

BWAHAHAHA.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Many on the gay slur Republicans as haters for opposing state recognition of same-sex marriage.  Guess that means that a Democratic president who opposes inclusion of a plank favoring such recognition in his party’s platform is also a “hater”:

In the past month, almost half of all Democratic senators, several of Obama’s national campaign co-chairs, the House Minority Leader and the chairman of the Democratic convention, among others, have said they support adding marriage equality to the platform. Were this the position that the president held, such proclamations would not be a problem. But Obama says he is still publicly “evolving” on marriage equality. And the wave of support to make it a component of his convention has both surprised aides and set off a private push to keep emotions and expectations in check.

Interviews with more than a dozen party officials and activists reveal that despitewidespread and growing support for marriage equality among Americans, the issue is still viewed as politically sensitive in the top ranks of the Democratic Party. While many high-profile figures have publicly advocated for including strong language in the platform, the Obama campaign and the allied Democratic National Committee are searching for ways to split the difference: showing support for equality but stopping short of a full-fledged endorsement.

“What would it take,” Allahpundit wonders, for Obama to back gay marriage “before the election“?

Well, for starters, he’d need to be worried about the youth vote. This is an issue that could get them to perk up if it looks like turnout is sagging; the question is whether it’ll cost him more votes in older demographics, where turnout is almost always higher, than it’ll earn him in younger ones. (more…)

Religion of Peace Alert! (via @BillyHallowell)

A disturbing trial came to a close this week in London, England, after three men were convicted of distributing pamphlets that called for gays and lesbians to be murdered. The hateful fliers were disturbing at best. One of them, titled, “Death Penalty?,” showed a mannequin that was hanging from a noose and said that gays should be sent to hell.

“The death sentence is the only way this immoral crime can be erased from corrupting society and act as a deterrent for any other ill person who is remotely inclined in this bent way.”

The leaflet continues: “The only dispute amongst the classical authorities was the method employed in carrying out the penal code.”

It goes on to offer burning, being flung from a high point such as a mountain or building, or being stoned to death as suitable methods.

It’s okay, the real threat to gays (according to American gay leftist/progressive types) is Rick Santorum. 

Move along, nothing to see here.  Except the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

And people wonder why I cannot relate to Gay, Inc. and the liberal/”progressive” leanings of 90% of America’s gay activists??

Here they are… front and center with their radical messages at another anti-American protest movement.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

What is old is new again!  The alleged “gay Republican organization” known as Log Cabin has once again decided it is more important to tear down our candidates rather than defeat President Obama’s America-destroying agenda.

Log Cabin – a fully bought-off affliliate of the Radical Gay Left’s Tim Gill – attacked Cain after the GOP candidate appeared this morning on “The View”.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Cain chose to divert attention away from a solid platform of greater liberty and smaller government by indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Log Cabin Republicans sincerely hope that Herman Cain is open to hearing the evidence and changing his mind on these issues.”

Chris Barron has an awesome, and gosh…. FACTUAL…. response to this Cain smear campaign by The Professional Gays.

 Cain specifically says on The View that he hasn’t seen enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality isn’t a choice and he admits that others have drawn different conclusions.

Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people.  Mr. Cain does not support a federal marriage amendment, will not reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.

Back in June I wrote about the left, and in particular the gay left’s reaction to Cain:

For the gay left none of this will matter.  All that matters is the group hug.  For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people, all that matters is that they get the pat on the head – the assurance that they are ok.  I don’t need the group hug, nor do I need affirmation from the government that I am ok.  What I need is a President and a Congress that will pursue policies that will make life better for me and my family.

It is time the gay community put real policy before emotional theater, and that is exactly why gay people should be willing to listen to and consider the candidacy of Herman Cain.

The Gay Left, including their paid-off Log Cabin affiliate, are too invested in the Obama Democrats to have a rational response to the Cain candidacy.  Too bad.  But their hatred of conservatives is too blatant to ignore these days.  So at least there is that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Today in 1993, President Clinton signed one of the most landmark anti-gay rights laws ever passed in the United States of America — the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Gay leftist revisionist history types like to blame Republicans in Congress for *making* Clinton sign a law.

FACT: Democrats controlled the US House under Bill Clinton until 1995

FACT: THE leading elected official advocating for outright ban of gays in military and then DADT was US Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)

FACT: Bill Clinton ran radio ads in his 1996 re-election campaign heralding his support of DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act

Facts are stubborn things.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

While we know HRC’s Joe Solmonese endorsed Obama’s campaign so early to show just how besotted he and his associates are with the Democratic Party, we also wonder why the Democrat was so eager to secure the endorsement so early in the cycle.

Well, in Jim Geraghty’s piece on a teachers’ union similarly premature endorsement, we find an explanation:

Number-Cruncher writes in, “I’m under no illusion the NEA will ever endorse a Republican candidate…but why this early? There is no GOP candidate yet, wouldn’t the union membership best be served by at least giving the GOP candidate ‘a chance’ to hear out his or her proposals, thus trying to win the appeal on a bi-partisan manner? I can only think of one reason for this move, the Obama people are going into over drive to get as much into Obama’s coffers as possible, and thus asked for this explicitly.  These are action of a very desperate campaign…on both sides. The Obama administration obviously is not raising enough money; the NEA is losing friends on the Democrat side of the aisle (see Cuomo).”

Emphasis added.  It’s all about the money.  You know all the media bellyaching about the corrupting influence of special interests and campaign cash we here when Republican candidates and conservative organizations raise a lot of money to promote, respectively, themselves and their causes, wonder how much we’ll hear with all the Obama campaign’s shenanigans in order to increase its haul.

Do wonder if any intrepid reporters for the MSM, as part of a renewed commitment to accountability journalism, will investigate to see just how explicitly — and aggressively — the Obama campaign (and maybe the president himself) sought out these endorsements and their concomitant cash.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

The title at the left-leaning Huffington Post says it all, Obama, At LGBT Fundraiser, Gets A Pass For Punting On Same-Sex Marriage.  But, of course he does, it’s that all-purpose (D) after his name, the (D) that makes a political candidate immune to criticism from and subject to adoration by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other gay activists to whom being loved by the Democrats means achieving your most sought-after goal, even if said lover only pays lip service to his affection.

Sure, he said yesterday “at a Manhattan fundraiser. . . geared specifically to the gay community” (the “Gala With the Gay Community”) that he believes “gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,” but what has he done to make that a reality?  Did HRC head Joe Solmonese ask his BFF why the Democrat failed to press Congress to act on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act when his party held an overwhelming majority in the House and a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate?  And when they held that legislative majority, his Democrats didn’t even bring repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) up for a vote, crossing their fingers and hoping unelected federal judges do what they were afraid to do.

Even though he was in the Empire State, where at this very moment, the legislature is considering state recognition of same-sex marriage, the HRC-endorsed Democrat “did not personally endorse the pending New York bill — which is nearing passage in the statehouse — or same-sex marriage itself.”  And still HRC head Joe Solmonese and company just couldn’t keep themselves from swooning.

Face it, guys, Obama just wants your money, like the cute boy who sweet talks you at the bar while ordering a $20 cocktail, then reaches for his wallet, only to feign shock when he just can’t find it.  “Maybe you can help me look for it,” he says as he puts his hand on your knee and looks into your eyes, but once he’s taken a few sips from the pricey drink you’ve bought him, he manages to slip away.  (more…)

Following the gay marriage debate in New York, Stephen H. Miller observes:

What’s going on in the New York marriage struggle shows why winning over Republicans (even just a few!) matters greatly. But those who run our leading LGBT political lobbies still seems to be firmly committed to a one-party strategy. Their identity politics is all bound up in being Democrats.

Indeed.

(Emphasis added.)

With Steve’s words in mind, I was wondering how HRC’s leadership thinks they can influence members of the majority caucus (you know those who set the agenda, chair the committees) in the U.S. House of Representatives now that the group has endorsed Barack Obama for reelection before the first ballots have even been cast in the contest for the GOP nomination.

I mean, isn’t part of their work lobbying our federal legislators?  And showing just how eager you are to back one party’s standard bearer is not likely to endear your organization to the opposing party’s leadership.  Just sayin’, ya know?

Perhaps, we might be able to get to the bottom of the Barack Obama’s changing stance on gay marriage if some leading gay rights’ activists were more interested in advocating for gay people than in agitating for Democratic politicians:

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, ME OR YOUR OWN LYING EYES? Senior White House aide: 1996 Obama gay marriage questionnaire is a fake, even though Obama signed it. Presumably the White House is demanding release of the original long-form questionnaire.

While HRC is silent, gay bloggers and blogreses are asking questions.  At Pam’s House Blend, Autumn Sandeen feels like she’s “watching a denial from the Obama Administration of Barack Obama’s 1996 position on marriage equality in the face of documentation that makes the denial appear to be a lie. It looks to me to be an attempt at a history rewrite“:

I can’t imagine that this isn’t going to cause problems between the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and the Obama Administration, and it will require someone more senior to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer in an attempt to straighten this out.

Once again, gay and lesbian bloggers (and blogresses), working on a shoestring, are doing the work the national gay organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, fancy offices and expense accounts refuse to do.

Does seem Obama arrives at his positions on gay issues, not on their merits, but on their politically expediency.

It seems he supported state recognition of same-sex marriage in his first campaign, yet subsequently never marched in any gay pride parade — or otherwise participated in such celebrations.  You’d think national gay groups would be asking questions, especially given the president’s aggressive solicitation of gay money and votes.

Kudos to the gay leftie bloggers unwilling to serve as lickspittles to a Democratic president with whom they are, by and large, ideologically in sync.  Would it we could say the same thing for the national gay groups.  But, for them it seems, fealty to the Democratic Party — and its standard bearers — remains the highest bond.

For the moment in 1995 when I had my first leading role in Log Cabin, then in the Capital Area Club, my fellow gay Republicans approached me wondering why the organization didn’t take on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).  They all wanted to see an alternative to that left-leaning organization.  And even as HRC became increasingly partisan in the George W. Bush era with its then-President Cheryl Jacques producing billboards and stickers with the slogan “George W. Bush, You’re Fired”, the then-Executive Director of Log Cabin refused to criticize her, having “instituted a new policy inside Log Cabin: If you speak ill of another LGBT group, that is grounds for dismissal.’”

In order to curry favor with the gay groups, Patrick Guerriero was ignoring his own base — or potential base.   He could have grown Log Cabin if he showed that his organization was the HRC alternative for which many gay Republicans (and a good number of gay independents) were clamoring.

And because R. Clarke Cooper, the Executive Director of Log Cabin, has been so quick to criticize HRC for prostrating itself before the president, I have decided that come next Tuesday at a Log Cabin/LA event, I will renew my membership — which had lapsed.  I encourage you all to join Log Cabin even if you, as I, disagree with them on a few issues. We need to show that they benefit by criticizing HRC’s partisan pandering.

Now, if we could only get them to call out GLAAD for countenancing hate speech against gay conservatives.

* (more…)

It’s not just GOProud and Log Cabin, right-of-center gay groups, which are criticizing HRC for endorsing President Obama’s reelection more than 17 months before Election Day.  Left-of-center blogress Pam Spaulding, who has long found Joe Solmonese to be little more than a cheerleader for the administration, calls the endorsement “odd for an allegedly non partisan org.”

Over at Queerty, Daniel Villarreal is asking whether HRC is screwing us by endorsing Barack Obama a year before the election.  He poses the question that anyone who has read couple pages of the CliffsNotes version of Machiavelli, sat in on a few hours of PoliSci 101 or studied the legislative process would ask,

HRC! Didn’t your mother teach you anything about flirting?! Don’t put out before the courtship even begins. Wait a little, make eyes, blow kisses, feign disinterest, drop your hanky and wave your fan. Make him earn the golden ticket.

As John Aravosis puts it,

HRC clearly hasn’t learned the lessons of the first two years of the Obama presidency. You don’t get anything for being nice to the man (well, anything of substance – I’m sure that HRC dinner invite is now locked in). If anything, he looks down on people who are nice to him. The only thing this President respects are people who stand up to him. The President didn’t finally start moving on DADT, and finally stop defending DOMA, because HRC was nice to him. He did it because this blog, GetEqual, Dan Choi, the larger Gay Netroots, and a very few organizations like Servicemembers United and SLDN stood up to the man. (Had HRC had its way, we’d still be debating the DADT repeal legislation in the Congress today.)

He got that right.  And John’s aggressive stance on his blog (as well as Pam’s on hers), threatening a boycott of the DNC, also forced the president’s hand.  John acknowledges that, in the long run, HRC may well have to endorse the Democrat, but he first wants Obama to work for the endorsement.  It’s not that they’re opposed to Obama, it’s that they’re appalled at HRC’s eagerness to give the goods away.

At least some gay lefty bloggers do get it, understanding that just wanting to be liked by the Democrats is not enough.  They know that sometimes to get what you want you have to play hard to get.

Log Cabin is not letting up in its attack on HRC, the Democratic front group the gay and lesbian advocacy organization, that recently endorsed President Obama’s reelection roughly nine months ahead of the first primaries.  In an e-mail to the group’s mailing list, Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper speculates as to what kind of “message” this endorsement “sends to Barack Obama”:

Feel free to take gay voters for granted. Don’t bother pushing for ENDA or DOMA repeal. There is no need to “evolve” any further on marriage. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal doesn’t even have to be certified. You’ve done enough.

We don’t think so.

Endorsements, especially from our community’s (nominally) nonpartisan advocates, should be made on the merits of the candidates. Unfortunately, HRC has a history of endorsing Democrats too soon out of blind faith. They endorsed Bill Clinton, only to have him then sign the Defense of Marriage Act. Shamefully, the endorsement remained.

Log Cabin Republicans are proud of our record of standing up for our friends and standing up to Republicans who cross the line. Can HRC say the same about Barack Obama? After this, can HRC truly represent the interests of LGBT Americans?

(Emphasis in original.)  No, it doesn’t, but the president certainly thinks HRC represents gay Americans.  And now that he has HRC’s endorsement, Obama will assume he’s taken care of those pesky homosexuals and can start vacuuming up their cash, with the reassurance that he doesn’t need do anything else to placate gay Democrats.  No worries any more about running afoul of some of his religious supporters averse not just to state recognition of gay marriage, but to civil unions as well. (more…)

So patent is HRC President Joe Solmonese’s pandering to Democratic politicians it’s almost as if he were prepping a skit for Saturday Night Live. Left-of-center lesbian blogress Pam Spaulding once compared his interaction with the White House to that of Sally Field winning an Oscar, seeking reassurance that the president’s team still likes him, right now, they like him.

Well, Joe took a step yesterday showing that he is still eager to win the White House’s affection, endorsing Barack Obama for re-election before the Republican field has even been set (and more than seventeen months before the actual election).  Let’s hope he has better luck with his endorsement than did Elizabeth Birch, one of his predecessors who, in 1996, endorsed an incumbent Democratic president for reelection only to have their endorsee sign the Defense of Marriage Act not long thereafter.  Lot of good that endorsement did.  Despite Clinton’s taking gay voters from granted, HRC did not rescind the endorsement.

And while this endorsement (just like that one) comes as no surprise — Joe’s blind devotion to the Democratic party has long been clear — something happened yesterday that comes as an incredible surprise, shattering the firmament of the gay political establishment.  No, it wasn’t the swift response from our friends at GOProud whose executive director Jimmy LaSalvia, within an hour of HRC’s announcement, said the “pre-emptive endorsement” shows HRC to be “little more than a puppet of the Democratic National Committee“.  Since their founding, our friends at GOProud have not hesitated to criticize HRC’s blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.

The real shocker was that not long after GOProud’s LaSalvia issued his statement, Log Cabin’s, yes, Log Cabin‘s Executive Director followed suit.  Yep, R. Clarke Cooper did something one of his predecessors instructed his staff never, never to do.  He criticized not just the executive director of another gay organization, but that organization itself.  And he didn’t mince words in doing so:

By prostrating themselves before Barack Obama eighteen months before the 2012 election, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has effectively told the president that he doesn’t have to do anything more to earn gay and lesbian votes. (more…)

Remember, the American Left wants you to believe the GZM is good, nothing to worry about, and Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

The new imam at the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center believes people who are gay were probably abused as children and that people who leave Islam and preach a new religion should be jailed.

Abdallah Adhami’s remarks on homosexuals, religious freedom and other topics have brought renewed criticism of the proposed community center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, which purports to be an inclusive organization.

Adhami, in a lecture on the Web site of his nonprofit, Sakeenah, says being gay is a “painful trial” caused by past trauma.

“An enormously overwhelming percentage of people struggle with homosexual feeling because of some form of violent emotional or sexual abuse at some point in their life,” he says. “A small, tiny percentage of people are born with a natural inclination that they cannot explain. You find this in the animal kingdom at some level as well.”

Charming.  The Gay Left would be taking to the streets if this Imam’s last name was “Palin”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)