Over the past decade, the Abbey has grown into one of the premiere gay watering holes in West Hollywood (if not all of Southern California).  When passing through the Southland, many of my gay friends insist on stopping by.  And as the establishment’s profile has increased, it has drawn an increasingly mixed crowd, including a good number of straight women.

This has not sat well with a good number of gay people.

Perhaps aware of the growing discontent of its core clientele or perhaps because of the reasons it offers, “The Abbey“, reports Simone Wilson of the LA Weekly

. . . is making a statement of its own: Until marriage is an option for everyone everywhere, ignorant straight chicks in penis hats are exiled from the building.

This will be the first all-out ban on bachelorette parties in the Los Angeles area. But WeHo patriots might be surprised to learn that in Chicago’s premiere gayborhood, bachelorette parties have been blacklisted for a few years now. Always one step ahead of us, that Boystown!

Given the complaints I have heard, I wonder if the management of the Abbey has decided to dress up their decision in politically correct rhetoric.  But, its reasons shouldn’t matter.  The Abbey is a private establishment and should be free to determine its clientele — and the types of celebrations it hosts.

And if straight women don’t like this decision, well, then, no one’s requiring them to patronize the Abbey.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Richard Bell sums it up, “Freedom of association is the American way.”  I might quibble a bit with his expression adding “one aspect of” between “is” and “the”.

Yesterday, I wrote that I’d “have to agree to disagree” with Richard Grenell’s expression of “pride in the president’s patently political statement” announcing his shift on gay marriage.  Like two-thirds of Americans in a recent poll, I believe the Democrat flipped on gay marriage “mostly for political reasons“.  Not even one quarter of Americans surveyed thought he made the decision because he believed it to be the right thing.

Perhaps had he better articulated his support for gay marriage, making the case why expanding the definition of this ancient institution would be a good thing both for the individuals who elect the benefits of the institution as well as for the society which recognizes same-sex couples as married.

Given the president’s failure to adequately articulate the reasons for his sudden change of heart “evolution” and the survey cited above, his statement which may cause numerous gay activists (nearly all previously favorably disposed to the Democrat) to feel good about themselves, will do little to further state recognition of same-sex unions.

Perhaps had the president, instead of announcing his switch in an interview with a friendly reporter, made a speech, putting forward ideas in favor of marriage similar to those offered by Jonathan Rauch, I might take him more seriously.  But, given the alacrity of his campaign — and Democratic affiliates — to use his new position for political/fundraising purposes, it seems that his switch was more related to the needs of his campaign than to an appreciation of the social benefits of matrimony.

When I first posted on Richard Grenell’s stepping down from the Romney campaign, I wrote that it was

. . . absurd to think that, as one social conservative quoted in Rubin’s piece suggests, that Grenell might “decamp from Romney to Obama” should that latter come out in favor of federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Does he really think gay people are so shallow that we’d back a candidate just because he has a better record on gay issues even when we disagree with him on nearly every other issue?

That social conservative, a Mr. Matthew J. Franck, reports Jennifer Rubin, had written:

Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?

Well, Mr. Obama didn’t wait until the Democratic National Convention. And in his appeal earlier this month for gay campaign cash, the Democrat did just what Mr. Franck imagined he might do.

And Mr. Grenell? Well, the headline for CNN’s report on his editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal says it all, Former Romney spox Grenell: Don’t vote on gay marriage:

He said that Romney’s position on same-sex marriage – which Grenell disagrees with – was not enough to write him off as a candidate.

“Like many voters, I rarely agree with a candidate’s every position,” Grenell wrote. “I can support Mr. Romney for president but not agree with all of his stated policies. (more…)

The Washington Post finds signs that the President’s recent plea for gay contributions to his campaign may have changed a few minds on gay marriage:

Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

Color me skeptical; the poll oversampled Democrats, giving the Democrats a ten-point advantage.  Their March sample only gave the president’s party a 4-point advantage and then 52 percent of Americans backed same-sex marriage.  If the poll had used a sample similar to the one they used two months ago, it is entirely likely that it would have registered a drop in support of same-sex marriage as did the recent Gallup poll.

If it’s true, as the poll indicates (and as Allahpundit reports) “that 54 percent of blacks supported O’s announcement versus 37 percent who disapproved”, one wonders the president didn’t make his annoucement before the North Carolina vote on Amendment One when he might have been able to change a few minds on that unfortunate proposition.

As I was reviewing the transcript of President Obama’s interview with ABC News’s Robin Roberts, I caught this aspect of the Democrat’s attempt to justify his switch on state recognition of same-sex marriage:

Part of the reason that I thought it was important– to speak to this issue was the fact that– you know, I’ve got an opponent on– on the other side in the upcoming presidential election, who wants to– re-federalize the issue and– institute a constitutional amendment– that would prohibit gay marriage. And, you know, I think it is a mistake to– try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.

Interesting how this supposedly post-partisan politician felt it incumbent upon himself to further politicize the issue.  He would have served himself — and the cause of gay marriage — better had he just limited his remarks to the merits of the expanded definition of this ancient institution.

It’s not just gay marriage.  The Democrat is trying to politicize American history:

The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography onwww.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick . . . .  Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford).

Ed Morrissey provides “a comprehensive collection of the ‘Did you know?’ sections added to boost Obama, with links to the specific pages attached to the names of the former Presidents“.

You’d think that the incumbent President of the United States would let the biographies of his predecessors speak for themselves, but this incumbent (or his staffers) felt it incumbent upon himself (or themselves) to insert his name intp their life stories, using their record to promote himself.

“Notwithstanding a comically fawning press” writes Charles Krauthammer this morning about the president’s sudden switch on gay marriage, “Obama knows he has boxed himself in.”

In his op-ed, the sage pundit talks about two arguments for gay marriage, Argument A, empathy, and Argument B, rights, and the president’s muddled position as he tries to straddle the two, first the former when he first announced his new position, then “five days later” moving on  ”to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of  ’expand[ing] rights‘ and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights”:

Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.

It’s Krauthammer.  Read the whole thing.

NB:  Am working on a post to address the argument that even if Obama is not sincere about his switch on gay marriage, it’s good to have the president speak out on the topic.  In this post, I will note the several arguments, gay marriage advocates make for expanding the definition of this ancient institution and address why Obama’s approach is so unsatisfying.

Although I often agree with Krauthammer and share his views about Obama trying to straddle the issue here, I believe there are more than just two types of arguments for gay marriage.

On two successive days last week, I posted about wanting to blog at a slower pace and focus on other things.  I have not yet had time to find that focus.

As per the second post, however, I really did the wrong week for slow blogging.  Since heading up to the Bay Area at the end of last month and determining to focus on other things, it has very much been the gay fortnight, first with a man (unfortunately) highly regarded in the gay community delivering a mean-spirited diatribe against Christians.  This was not that man’s first foray into nasty rhetoric — or juvenile antics (and he’s no longer in secondary school).

Then came the Grenell matter where the Romney campaign awkwardly handled a situation which appeared to have become delicate.  I will have a bit more to say on this, hopefully later this afternoon, but that post (on the awkward way the Romney campaign handled the matter) got delayed by the president’s (successful) ploy to raise campaign cash from the gay community.

If the president’s shift on gay marriage were sincere, wouldn’t he have made a stronger case for expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, telling his fellow citizens why he believes this expansion to be a good thing for the individual couples — and for society at large?

Will try to keep up a steady blogging pace, but do hope you understand if I slow it down a bit for a few days.

It’s not just an on-line poll on Yahoo! A New York Times survey finds that Obama’s Switch on Same-Sex Marriage Stirs Skepticism:

Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed by The New York Times and CBS News since the announcement said they thought that Mr. Obama had made it “mostly for political reasons,” while 24 percent said it was “mostly because he thinks it is right.” Independents were more likely to attribute it to politics, with nearly half of Democrats agreeing.

This may help the president with his fund-raising, but don’t think it will convince wavering independents that the president is a decisive leader.  ”Turns out,” Hugh Hewitt quips, “voters have mistaken ‘evolution’ for transparent ‘manipulation.’”

Law professor William A. Jacobson sees “the makings of a major political disaster not because people disagree with Obama’s position on gay marriage (although many do), but because it revealed once again the cynical money-hungry permanent campaigner and self-absorved politician he is.”  Indeed.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  TnnsNE1 is “tired of being a political football. Let’s please concentrate on things that really matter to most Americans.”  Yes, let’s.

Since we are perhaps the leading gay conservative blog, I supposed we’re supposed to chime in on the latest Newsweek cover story, given its gay theme and that is written by a prominent gay ex-conservative (still billed by some as a conservative).

I hate to disappoint our readers.  I have no intention of reading the cover story.  There are only so many hours in the day.  And, well, when it comes to Obama, Andrew Sullivan has become remarkably predictable.

Andrew once offered a fresh and unique insight into gay culture and American politics.  Now he just offers the party line.

Indeed, so goofy is he for Obama that he accords him an honor he once bestowed upon Abraham Lincoln.  In October 2010, he held that Abraham Lincoln was gay. And since Lincoln served roughly a century before Obama was born, that would make Obama the second gay president.

To call Obama a “gay president” is to ignore the first two years of his administration when he dragged his feet on repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) and neglected to push Congress to act on DOMA repeal or civil union recognition.  A gay president would have made those issues a priority and would not have needed energetic left-of-center bloggers to spur him on.  Eventually, he did do the right thing on DADT — but only after considerable pressure from those bloggers.  He didn’t do much, if anything, to advance federal recognition of same-sex unions.

With that in mind, I have little interest in reading a piece by Andrew on Obama.  He sees the president not as he is, but as he would like the Democrat to be.

And reading Andrew Sullivan today is like returning to a beloved restaurant only to learn that they have taken all your favorite dishes off the menu and replaced them with the fare served at a chain restaurant, say Arby’s.

At Ace of Spades, Maetenloch offers a somewhat snarky spin, contending that “at this point“: (more…)

There are two new polls out which suggest that even as voters across the country reject state recognition of same-sex marriages, they are increasingly open to civil unions.  Given the care Gallup takes to survey a representative sample of the American population, we should have every confidence that theirs presents a pretty accurate portrait of American public opinion.

Their latest shows, as per their headline, U.S. Acceptance of Gay/Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal. Indeed.  Take a gander at this chart and look when the shift occurred:

During the Bush years, the 13-point advantage of those finding gay relations morally wrong was erased.

And this belief that gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable accelerated in recent years. Another chart shows that more Americans find gay/lesbian relationships morally acceptable than believes same-sex marriages should be valid. Guess that means that all opponents of state recognized gay marriages are not haters — as goes the narrative.

By a 2-to-1 margin (63-31), Americans think gay and lesbian relationships between consenting adults should be legal. A CBS survey yields a similar result, showing that “62 percent – close to two thirds – of Americans believe that same-sex unions should be recognized by law.”

With research from NYU political scientist Patrick Egan showing that “the share of voters in pre-election surveys saying that they will vote to ban same-sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day”, perhaps the better strategy toward improving the lot of gay people in relationships would be, in the present, to push for civil unions.

These numbers show just how greatly things are improving for gay people in America.  Attitudes are shifting.  Not all Americans may want to call our unions marriages, but increasingly, they respect their integrity and moral worth.  A good sign indeed.

As usual you can count on blogress diva Ann Althouse for insightful commentary on events of the day.  And she does so again today with her thoughts on gay marriage and the 2012 election.

She agrees with us that Republicans should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Obama:

The issues in this election should have to do with economics, foreign policy, and the things that fall squarely within a President’s responsibility. Obama has a record here, and he should have to defend it, not distract us with a “social” issue. His actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn’t even different from Romney’s: Leave it to the states. Leave it to the states is a fine — truly excellent — way to package the issue and set it to the side. I would encourage Republicans to do exactly that . . .

Emphasis added.  Just read the whole thing (via Instapundit).

I quibble slightly with Althouse’s spin, and would replace the word “actual” in the highlighted passage above with “effective.”  Romney does favor a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus precluding state recognition of same-sex unions.

The reason, however, I would use the word “effective” is that there is no way such an amendment could muster the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to be sent to the states for ratification — and you need three-quarters of the states to agree to a constitutional amendment.  Ain’t gonna happen.

The only difference between Obama’s policy on gay marriage and Romney’s is rhetorical.  Just words.

Please note that I include this post in random thoughts because I am not entirely sure how answer to the question I pose in the title.  Until last night, I thought that Obama’s recent shift on gay marriage wouldn’t make any difference in the fall, save to increase his fundraising. Then, I got a link to this video last night in my e-mail, watched it and wondered:

Victor Davis Hanson’s read on the president’s supposed shift also caused me to question my initial interpretation:

The flip-flop on gay marriage, of course, did not win Obama a single vote, just plenty of one-percenters’ money. More injurious to his cause was his idiotic refrain about his “evolving” views. No one believed that yarn: fifteen years ago he was for gay marriage when it was smart politically for him to be so, and then he revolved to “no” when it was not. All that happened this week was that clueless Joe Biden jumped the gun. Obama with a wink and nod had privately assured rich gays, as he had Putin, that after his reelection he would give them what was wanted, but could not quite yet, given his need to hoodwink the clingers to get reelected. I think most voters understood that con as emblematic of this presidency.

Via Instapundit.  Where it hurts the most is not the merits of the issue, but that people will see the re-positioning as patently political.  Not just that, he looks out of touch, having announced his shift the day after North Carolina voters overwhelmingly rejected state recognition of same-sex marriage.  It’s almost as if he were thumbing his nose at the citizens in a state that he won in 2008–and is trying to hold again this year.

Now, I wish that gay marriage were not, to borrow Mitt Romney’s expression, “a hot political issue dividing our nation.”  And wish support of state recognition of same-sex unions would not hurt a candidate at the polls.  And maybe, under normal circumstances, it wouldn’t. (more…)

What Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper giveth in one release on Thursday, with his strong statement on Obama’s fundraising pitch to the gay community, he taketh (partially) away in another that very day with a threatening language  directed against his own party’s presidential nominee:

Marriage equality has captured the nation’s attention, and the response to President Obama’s announcement is evidence of the tide turning in favor of equality for all. . . .

Governor Mitt Romney’s statement in opposition to not just marriage but civil unions jeopardizes his ability to win moderates, women and younger voters, especially as a large majority of Americans favor some form of relationship recognition for their LGBT friends and neighbors.

Equality for all?  What’s that mean?  It’s certainly not a conservative slogan, but one more familiar to a Mr. W. Smith.

Clarke is right to criticize Romney for his “opposition to not just marriage but civil unions”, but his tone is counterproductive.  Moderates, women and younger voters won’t vote against him because of his stand on gay marriage.  They will, however, vote against him if he makes that stand central to his campaign.  They’re not going to decide their vote exclusively on gay marriage.  He would have served himself (and the cause of his organization) better had he merely expressed disappointment with Romney’s position.

Clarke is not the only non-left gay leader to offer intemperate remarks about Romney this week.  Our pal JimmyLaSalvia, Executive Director and Co-Founder of GOProud, “With his speech at Falwell’s Liberty University, it is clear that Governor Romney’s message to Goldwater conservatives is: drop dead.”  Earlier today, Governor Romney delivered the commencement address there.

While we would rather the Republican nominee not have to make a courtesy call at Jerry Falwell U (as have all Republican candidates “in recent years“), Romney’s speech hardly amounted to a repudiation of Goldwater’s small government ideals.  Indeed, his talk barely touched upon government’s role in society, save to remind the graduating students that “Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution“. He focused instead on the importance of family and faith.

And he did say, what we already know him to believe, “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.” He offered nothing new on social issues — and didn’t attack gay people or advocate policies anathema to libertarians. (more…)

Gay marriage will not decide the 2012 election unless either major party candidate makes it the focus of his campaign. The one that does that will indeed decide the election — for his opponent.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for the record supports gay marriage; the presumptive Republican opposes it.

Ed Morrissey contends that the manner in which the Democratic candidate came out for gay marriage could hurt him:

When a President goes out of his way to support a position that state after state opposes — same-sex marriage — it’s not going to have a positive result on polling.  It helps even less when (a) no one really believed Obama’s stated former position, and (b) the President has to get pushed into telling the truth, by his own admission, by a Vice President stumbling his way off the reservation.  No matter what the White House wants to claim as courage in this decision, it hardly looks like leadership.

It goes to Obama’s approach to the issue.  People do see it as a pandering political move.  This may excite a lot of left-of-center, but most were already favorably disposed to the Democrat anyway.  This decision will, to be sure, help in Obama’s fundraising — the likely reason for the sudden shift.

The bottom line is that, cultural issues in general (including gay marriage) “rank low”, as Morrissey reports, on voters’ lists of priorities.  If either candidate dwells on the issue, voters may wonder about his commitment to address the nation’s more pressing problems.

On Facebook, a college classmate living in Virginia offered this beautiful commentary on the results earlier this week in North Carolina and I reprint it with his permission:

Regarding North Carolina, my second thought is… I have been with Eric for nearly seventeen years. Whatever we have we got from ourselves, our families, and our friends. Whatever we still need we will get from those same sources. At this point, I honestly cannot imagine feeling any more married than I already feel. There is nothing in the current heterosexual reality that I feel inspired any longer to pursue.

What the hell am I talking about?  Well, you have to read my piece now up at The Daily Caller to find out.

Here’s a taste:

They [the gay leftists] will send money and vote for Obama in the same way they still fawn over Bill Clinton, who stabbed gays in the back during his time in office. The most important thing for gay ideologues in America is not earning the respect of their fellow Americans. It is being patted on the head and told they are loved by their Democratic president.

And I am called self-loathing?

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/11/barack-buchanan-and-the-gay-left/#ixzz1uakplzgs

Enjoy!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

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.)

Surveying the returns on North Carolina’s Amendment One, William Kristol finds that the measure was soundly defeated in two counties with large universities by margins of “5 to 1 and 5 to 2, respectively”, yet passed by margins of 2 to 1 in neighboring “counties like Alamance, Person, and Granville”.

This causes him to “bet there’s more tolerance in Alamance, Person and Granville for those who are proponents of gay marriage than there is at Duke or UNC-Chapel Hill for the opponents.”

I’d made the same wager.  Here’s one piece of evidence that suggests the odds on this wager are better than even.

Interesting how today, both gay conservatives and leftists see through President Obama’s pander yesterday on gay marriage, coming as it did following a week when the Democrats was facing questions for his stand on gay marriage.

The president may claim that Vice President Biden’s recent comments on gay marriage forced the timing of the announcement, but the real question is why he didn’t announce his change of heart when it could have made a difference, especially given, as Ed Morrissey reports that, in his interview yesterday, Obama claimed “he’d made up his mind to change his position some time ago“:

And for all of those who cheered this flip-flop, here’s a question: wouldn’t it have been more effective in North Carolina had Obama made this announcement before Amendment One went to the polls?  According to Obama himself, he’d already changed position on same-sex marriage.  An announcement last week or the week before that, with a personal plea to African-American voters, might have made a difference.  Instead, Obama hid, the White House fibbed, and Amendment One won easily in a state that Obama carried in 2008.  Regardless of whatever else this might be called, leadership isn’t among the terms that come to mind.

Ad the Yahoo! online survey indicates, it does seem most people see through the president’s pandering move, with more than two-thirds of respondents saying they see his policy shift as based on campaign politics.

This may help rally the base and generate some more campaign cash, but could well end up being a net negative for the president, not on the merits of the issue, but on his approach.  Expect more people to realize Obama is just another politician for whom political calculation matters more than principle.

UPDATE:   Seems Obama consulted his political advisors to reach the decision he announced yesterday: (more…)

Maybe Obama’s shift on gay marriage was about more than money.  On our Facebook page, our reader Chad wondered if President Obama “decided to come out in favor of SSM now because he knows it’s more popular than he is.”  He’s got a point.

Today’s Gallup tracking point shows the president’s approval has edged up to 48:

And the latest Gallup poll shows 50% of Americans think gay marriages should be recognized as valid by the law: (more…)