I expect to have more to say about this later in the day, but have been quite busy.  Am just returning from a trip to Cincinnati to celebrate my twin nieces’ B’Not Mitzvah and am now preparing to head up to the Bay Area to celebrate Thanksgiving with my youngest nephews (and their parents).

I caught this in a BuzzFeed piece linked in HotAir‘s headlines.  Seems gay marriage advocates have followed my advice in making their pitch for state recognition of gay marriage in the states which voted on it earlier this month:

Among the key changes were a shift away from talk of “rights” to a focus on committed relationships; a decision to address “values” directly as being learned at home; and an attempt to give voters “permission” to change their minds, according to elements of the research shared with BuzzFeed.

I’ve long been saying advocates should focus on the meaning of the institution rather than the supposed “right” to state recognition.

Interesting that the research the various “marriage equality” groups conducted confirmed my points.

More anon.  I hope.

Few advocates for gay marriage make a strong argument for expanding the defining of the institution. They talk about “rights” and “equality” without appreciating the meaning of marriage.

By saying, for example, that we only have a right to marriage when the state recognizes it, they imply that marriage is a creature of the state — and in the absence of that government-issued certificate has no existence whatsoever.  And yet marriage existed long before any government ever recognized it.  And exists today even in the absence of state recognition.

Some gay marriage advocates do get the meaning of the institution; that’s why I have referenced Jonathan Rauch repeatedly in my posts on the topic. But, now in her piece offering some tips on how Republicans can take back the majority, Megan McArdle recognizes that marriage is more than just a “right” (or a question of “equality”):

The GOP would also help itself with those people by embracing gay marriage. To be sure, this might cause them some problems with the evangelical base whose organizing support is crucial to Republican get-out-the-vote efforts. But the GOP could assuage that tension by promulgating a hard-core, Republican version of gay and straight marriage. That’s why they should pair it with making marriage mandatory, and eliminating no-fault divorce. The message should be that if everyone can get married, then there’s no really excuse not to be.

(Via Instapundit.) Now, I don’t like the idea of making marriage mandatory, but do like the notion of pairing gay marriage with eliminating no-fault divorce. It shows that she understands the institution to be more than just a contract between individuals.

Seven years ago, as Jane Galt, McArdle wrote A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other. I read it back then; it’s well worth your time.

McArdle is one of the few people who has written intelligently about gay marriage.  Would it that there were more like her!

Today, many gay Americans will vote (or have already) enthusiastically for Barack Obama in large part because of his recent evolution on gay marriage.

This evolution, however, has not translated into action.  He has yet to put forward a legislation to recognize same-sex marriages — or even same-sex civil unions.  Nor has he pressed Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  He hasn’t even sat down with congressional leaders to map out a strategy.

He never reached out personally to Republicans open (or potentially open) to backing gay marriage to ask for their help in realizing federal recognizing of same-sex unions.  Just as it was with gay marriage, so was it with immigration reform.  Four years ago, he promised Hispanic voters that he would pass immigration reform in his first year in office.

And except for a few perfunctory meetings, he never tried to forge a compromise with legislators from both parties.  He just didn’t make any effort to realize his promises.

The bottom line here is to repeat what we said last month.  Barack Obama’s evolution on gay marriage was for nothing; if he’s reelected he has said, he won’t do anything to push for federal recognition of same-sex marriages.  Or even civil unions.

As it is with gay marriage in 2012, it was with immigration reform in 2008:   Barack Obama was pandering in order to secure the votes and campaign cash of an important constituency.

Three years ago, on the same day, voters in Maine approved a citizens’ veto of a state law recognizing same-sex marriage and voters in Washington State rejected an initiative to overturn its law recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships.  That is, one state rejected same-sex marriage; another approved same-sex civil unions.

I wondered at the time if a consensus were emerging in the country, favoring state recognition of same-sex unions, but not calling them “marriages.”  In four states tomorrow, Maine, yet again, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State, voters will have a chance to weigh in on state recognition of gay marriage, with the Old Line State most likely to be the first state to reject an initiative barring state recognition of same-sex marriage.

It does seem that residents of coastal states are inching closer to favoring state recognition of gay marriage, with Americans in the middle of the country, increasingly open to civll unions, even in the most conservative of states.  A recent poll found that while “72 percent of Utah voters oppose gay marriage . . , 71 percent now favor some form of legal recognition, compared to 62 percent nationally“.  More voters in Mormon Utah favoring civil unions than in the nation at large?!?

Despite this emerging consensus for civil unions, Congress has failed to bring up any legislation to recognize such relationships.  The failure, I believe, stems from the sad fact that each party fears offending one of its key interest groups.  If Democrats were to push for civll unions, they would offend gay groups beholden to “marriage equality.”  If Republicans were to do the same, they’d upset social conservatives who oppose any federal (or state for that matter) recognition of same-sex unions. (more…)

When Obama announced in May that he had evolved on gay marriage your humble bloggers, like many Americans, saw it as little more than a political gimmick.  It was all about hauling in the campaign cash from trusting gays.

It seems that gay Democrats were just a little too eager for Obama to like them.

Back then, I cited some on the left who reported Obama’s policies on gay  marriage had changed little despite his expressed “evolution.”  In May, he didn’t identify any new legislation he would be supporting or promoting to effect federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Shouldn’t left-leaning gays, I asked,

. . . 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.

Some gay Democrats were just a little too eager to be loved by Obama.  It’s all about him making them fell good, but, in the end, his policy on gay marriage is little different from Romney’s.

We told you his “evolution” was a political gimmick, a fundraising scheme.  And yesterday, Barack Obama showed that we were right.

Obama Tells MTV He Won’t Push Gay Marriage In Second Term

Seems we were right, this was all just a fundraising gimmick.

UPDATE 10/16/12 @ 3:24 PM EST Good news: Gallaudet president wants Angela McCaskill to return following gay marriage petition controversy

“Some proponents of gay marriage“, reads the subhead to John Fund’s piece on The New Blacklist, “would rather intimidate their critics than debate them.”  If they believe their case to be so strong, why are they so reluctant to take on those who oppose it?

Jonathan Rauch had no such compunction about taking on one-time gay marriage opponent David Blankenhorn, helping the latter change his mind. There is a real-world example of the power of ideas to persuade, yet other gay marriage activists would rather ostracize gay marriage opponents than make an effort to challenge their opinions.

Fund tells the story of Angela McCaskill, “the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing”:

She has now worked at Gallaudet for over 20 years, and in January 2011 she was named its chief diversity officer. Last year, she helped open a resource center for sexual minorities on campus. But she has now been placed on leave because of pressure from some students and faculty. Her job is on the line.

McCaskill’s sin? She was one of 200,000 people to sign a petition demanding a referendum on a law recognizing gay marriage, which was signed by Maryland’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, in March. The referendum will be on the ballot next month, and the vote is expected to be close.

. . . .

Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz, announced that he was putting McCaskill on paid leave because “some feel it is inappropriate for an individual serving as chief diversity officer” to have signed such a petition.

(Read the whole thing.)  Guess, diversity doesn’t mean diversity of opinion. (more…)

With Chicago’s murder rate surging, you’d think a city alderman would have better uses for his time than to pester a private company, yet Alderman Joe Moreno has garnered national headlines for his attempts to prevent Chick-fil-A from contributing to groups that support traditional marriage.

Even as the chicken chain’s management has “enacted workplace protections for its employees against discrimination“, Moreno wants more:

 A Chicago alderman says Chick-fil-A’s president is publicly contradicting what company executives personally assured him for months — that the fast-food chain is changing its stance on gay marriage — and he asked the company Sunday to clarify. . . .

Moreno said Chick-fil-A executives gave him a letter earlier this year saying the company’s non-profit arm, the WinShape Foundation, will not support organizations with political agendas. “We were told that these organizations included groups that politically work against the rights of gay and lesbian people,” Moreno said.

(Via HotAir headlines.)  Simply put, it is not the business of the government to police the political stands of private companies.

It is one thing for an individual not to choose to eat at the restaurant because of its management’s political stands, it’s quite another for a representative of the government to try to prevent them from taking a stand.

UPDATE:  Just caught this on Instapundit:

NEW VERB:  TO BE “CHICK-FIL-Aed”:  William McGurn astutely observes that the continuing saga of Chick-Fil-A’s skirmish with gay rights’ forces isn’t a political fight about a controversial topic, but instead part of a larger progressive agenda to silence all opposing views.   There’s one small problem that I see with the attempt to vilify CFA:  their sandwiches–oh, the essence of pickle!– are divine.

Yes, pretty much sums it up.  It is about silencing opposing views.  Does seem gay marriage advocates are quite eager to do that.  If they’re so confident in their cause, why don’t they relish the opportunity to debate it?

Disagreeing with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins’ contention that “the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] had given [the FRC shooter] ‘a license to shoot’“, saying the comment “goes too far”, the National Review’s Rich Lowry reminds conservatives that

Nothing the SPLC does sanctions violence, and [the shooter]’s alleged crime is his responsibility and his alone. But the SPLC’s designation of the Family Research Council is intolerant all the same, a bullying attempt to short-circuit free debate.

It’s not as if the SPLC considers the Family Research Council mildly offensive, or barely hateful. Asked if someone addressing a Family Research Council meeting was as guilty as someone addressing an Aryan Nation rally, the SPLC’s research director said “yes.”

I agree with Lowry that the SPLC goes too far in labeling the Family Research Council a “hate group.”  They may put out some pretty strange and generally inaccurate statements/opinions on gay people, but, like many groups with strange opinions, including the SPLC, they don’t advocate violence against the individuals or groups they criticize.  Rich laments that it’s fortunate the outfit . . .

. . . can’t tell the difference between people who hate blacks and people who support the traditional definition of marriage. . . .

The SPLC calls the Family Research Council a “hate group.” This puts it in the same league as the True Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, the Supreme White Alliance, the Old Glory Skinheads and, of course, the American Nazi Party.

As they ask in kindergarten, which of these things isn’t like all the others?

Via Instapundit.  Read the whole thing  Lowry goes on to call the SPLC’s categorizing “profoundly illiberal” and suggest is purpose is to shut down discourse on gay marriage.

They’re not the only group who wants to shut down debate on this topic.  If gay marriage advocates believe they have a strong case to make for state recognition of same-sex marriage, they should welcome criticism as it will afford them a better opportunity to make their case, which (they believe) is the stronger argument (than the case for traditional marriage).

Reader MV passed along Sarah Palin’s Facebook post which, in a normal world, would generate a bit of buzz among those concerned about the improving state of affairs for gay and lesbian Americans.  The accomplished former Governor of Alaska writes that her daughter:

Bristol makes such an important point in this post! Being in favor of the traditional definition of marriage doesn’t mean a person hates gay people or is expected to shy away from candidly answering what their opinion is on something like marriage. Since when has our nation been anything but an exceptional nation that prides itself on the right of expressing personal opinion under the First Amendment and continuing to build our culture on a melting pot of diversity. Need we remind people that leaders like Barack Obama and Joe Biden held the exact same position as Bristol does in favor of traditional marriage just a few short months ago, yet were never called “haters” of anyone.

In the post Palin cited, her daughter addressed the question whether she would “mind dancing with a gay dance partner“:

Frankly, I found the question silly.  Of course, I’d most like to dance with Mark again, but that’s up to the producers! If I can’t dance with Mark, I’d love to dance with a gay partner, a straight partner, or anything in between. (more…)

“Since talking about” gay marriage “in the heat of the primaries,” write Maggie Haberman and Emily Schultheis in Politico

. . . [presumptive Republican nominee Mitt] Romney has largely steered clear of it. He referenced defending traditional marriage in his recent NAACP speech, to the delight of social conservatives with whom he met in Denver last week, but it’s not a frequent talking point.

When Romney does bring up marriage, he merely references his support for the institution as it has long been defined between two individuals of different sexes.  He doesn’t dwell on the topic.  Even in his speech at the socially conservative Liberty University, he only briefly referenced traditional marriage, then moved on.

The Politico writers contend that

. . . the comparative quiet from party leaders would have been unimaginable even four years ago, when public opinion hadn’t yet shifted so rapidly on a signature social issue. And it marks a dramatic change among some of the top Republican donors and opinion-makers, who are supporting same-sex marriage in state-based gay legislative and legal fights, even as the official GOP platform will remain centered on traditional marriage.

Actually, if they checked the record that Republicans largely steered clear of the issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.  Even in 2004, they never made it “a frequent talking point”.  Then-President George W. Bush, running for reelection, briefly indicated his support for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage and then moved on.

I have long argued, to borrow the title of the Politico piece that Republicans should steer clear of gay issues.  It does seem that Romney is determined to do just that, keeping the focus on economic issues which unite the party and which are of the greatest concern to the better part of the undecided voters.

Since I was driving to Denver yesterday, I was unable to participate in the “Kiss-in” at the Hollywood Chick-fil-A.  Had I been in town, I may well have joined in, having fun by finding a fetching fellow to kiss in front of the franchise, then walking into the restaurant and buying him a nice chicken meal, while ordering a nice cup of their most refreshing lemonade for myself.

Given some of the photos (via Instapundit) I saw from the “Kiss-In”, it seems that most protesters were more interested in expressing themselves than in presenting a positive image of same-sex affection. Yeah, a three-person kiss and signs like “Eat More Carpet” will go a long way to changing social conservative attitudes toward gays.

Now, these folks were surely having fun.  One thing that’s great about America is that they are free to express so flamboyantly their opposition to the views of the chicken chain’s president.

But, just as such flamboyant displays of disagreement likely will make it more challenging to change minds, so too is labeling opposition to gay marriage as “hate” little likely to foster dialogue.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the Rev. Sarah Halverson of Fairview Community Church did just that, saying she

 . . . respects [Chick-fil-A President Dan] Cathy’s right to free speech, she said, but also exercised her own right to speak out against what she considers hate speech.

“We have the right to stand in disagreement with another’s speech,” she said.

At a Chick-fil-A in Torrance where vandals painted the words “Tastes Like Hate” on the side of the restaurant Thursday night, the “National Same-Sex Kiss Day” was off to a slow start.

She’s does have the right to stand in disagreement.  That said, we should also consider whether the way we stand causes those with whom we disagree to reconsider their views.  Calling those views “hate speech” is not likely to effect such reconsideration.  If anything, it may cause them to double down in disagreement.

NB:  Tweaked the conclusion to improve its flow.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Just Me finds it to be a shame that some utilize the confrontational tactics, “because I think gays would get much further by engaging in legitimate debate than the in your face, deliberately provocative displays that don’t pay any respect to the other opinion or with any attempt to find common ground.”

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…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Yahoo! is currently headlining a story that the “Democratic Party has added new language endorsing gay marriage in its platform draft, the Washington Blade reports.”

Predictably, liberal gay friends on Facebook are cooing over the report.  All the hullabaloo over this story obscures one points which most gay Democrats don’t desire to discuss:  when Democrats had solid majorities in both houses of Congress in the first two years of the Obama administration, neither President Barack Obama nor the Democratic leaders of either house made any serious effort to move forward on federal recognition of same-sex civil unions.  They didn’t even reach out to Republicans open to such recognition to try to craft a bipartisan approach.

With signs that the House will remain Republican after the current elections — and with increasing signs that the Senate will flip as well — this new platform language is meaningless.  The real question is why national gay organizations would rather demonize the presumptive Republican presidential nominee (or a chicken chain) than reach out to Republicans.

(More on this as time allows.)

* (more…)

(H/t: Reader Chris H.)

Although President Obama’s current claim to support gay marriage puts him at odds with Chick-fil-A President Dan T. Cathy, a devout Christian who supports the traditional definition of marriage, the Democrat shouldn’t have any problem enjoying a chicken dinner at one of Mr. Cathy’s franchises.  After all, the socially conservative entrepreneur didn’t build that enterprise.  Somebody else made that happen.

Last week, Bruce posted on the sudden notoriety of Brad Pitt’s mother.  Yesterday, Michelle Malkin came to her defense.  Now, we can agree to disagree with Mrs. Pitt on some issues, but one wonders why when the Missouri woman faulted Obama for being “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage”, some, as Michelle details, would see her expression of her opinion as “hate” and proceed to call her names and wish for her death.

Michelle writes:

Self-appointed Tinseltown anti-bigotry cops blew their tops [in response to Mrs. Pitt expressing her views in a letter to the editor for Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader] The Hollywood Reporter labeled Mrs. Pitt’s letter “anti-gay.” Gossip website Global Grind, founded by rap mogul Russell Simmons, called her “homophobic.”

Anti-gay?  Did she express hostility to gay people? No, she just indicated her opposition to same-sex marriage.

Do people just want to vent — or do they want to change minds?  Instead of insulting Mrs. Pitt, gay marriage advocates would be better served by explaining why state recognition of  gay marriage is a good thing.

In his statement praising presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s “Inclusive Tone” yesterday at the NAACP Convention, Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper added that “it is unfortunate that he countered his outreach to gay and lesbian Americans with a gratuitous attack on the freedom to marry.”

He did?

All he said about marriage was simply this, “As President, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage.”  He never said he would deny individuals the freedom to form couples and define their unions as marriages.

Now, this is not to say I join Mr. Romney in supporting a federal constitutional amendment allowing states to recognize only traditional marriages as such. I don’t; I oppose this change to our national charter.

Clarke’s statement, however, suggests that marriage doesn’t exist in the absence of state recognition. To the contrary, marriage has existed as institution long before governments recognized it.  And many marriages exist today without the benefit of state sanction.

The issue in the marriage debates is not whether gay couples are free to marry, but whether the state should recognize their unions and grant them the same benefits they offer to straight couples.

Freedom doesn’t come from the state, but the state can limit its exercise.   (more…)

Returning home from a date to see The Amazing Spider-Man last night, I caught this leading Yahoo!:

Now, to be fair to the folks at Yahoo!, did acknowledge the applause Mitt Romney received at the NAACP meeting (dismissing it a tad by calling it “polite”), but this outlet like others (as I witnessed today via my left-of-center Facebook friends) focused on the boos, the hostile reaction.  Both Powerline (in their “Picks” section) and Instapundit (in this post) linked this report in Twitchy, Lapdog media play up NCAA boos for Romney:

As Twitchy reported this morning, Mitt Romney spoke at the NAACP National Convention in Houston. Predictably, his promise to repeal Obamacare was met with boos. However, his firm support of traditional marriage was met with applause (as was his support for the Keystone Pipeline and charter schools). You’d never know that, though, were you to watch mainstream media outlets. Those applause don’t suit the narrative! Are NAACP members drinking the H8R-ade? That doesn’t suit. So, ignore! Ignore like the wind!

It’s not just Mormons and evangelical Christians who support traditional marriage — and oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Now, while our friends in the legacy media have played up the boos and, by and large, ignored the substance of a very solid speech, the presumptive Republican nominee addressed problems facing black Americans and discussed solutions consistent with free-market conservatism.  Seems folks in the legacy media would rather focus on the spectacle than the issues — while bemoaning how little people consider the issues.

Do wonder how the media would react if President Obama spoke to a meeting of leaders of the Church of Latter Day Saints.  Would the Democrat agree to address such a gathering?  If he spoke forthrightly as did Mr. Romney to the NAACP, I dare say the Mormon crowd would disagree with the speaker — and the media would spin the story as one of courage, a noble man daring to speak his mind before a hostile audience. (more…)

Unfortunately, I have a lot of little things to attend to in the next forty-eight hours, so will not be able to address the two items I consider in the post with the attention they deserve.  In the past twenty-four hours, via Yahoo! and Facebook, I read about private institutions addressing two concerns of the gay community, the first, a religious institution, the second a private business.

“At the Episcopal General Convention,” reports the Associated Prsss

. . . which is divided into two voting bodies, about 80% of the House of Deputies voted to authorize a provisional rite for same-sex unions for the next three years. A day earlier, theHouse of Bishops approved the rites 111-41 with three abstentions during the church meeting in Indianapolis.

Supporters of the same-sex blessings insisted it was not a marriage ceremony despite any similarities. Called “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant,” the ceremony includes prayers and an exchange of vows and rings. Same-sex couples must complete counseling before having their unions or civil marriages blessed by the church.

Interesting that the church chose to bless same-sex unions without calling such blessings a marriage ceremony.  It may not be ideal for some, but clearly represents a step in the right direction.  (More on this anon; I hope.)

From a friend on Facebook, I learn of a gay couple reporting

. . . being verbally harassed and physically threatened at a Lowe’s home improvement store in Riverside, Calif. have been granted temporary restraining orders against the employees who allegedly attacked them. Jeremy Smythe, 29, and Daniel Soto, 35, have requested video evidence from Lowe’s of the incident and are considering a civil case against the store.

I think these men are wrong to consider a civil case against Lowe’s.  This is a private company; they should seek a private solution, asking the company to investigate the behavior and discipline/discharge the employees if said investigation reveals that they did indeed harass the clients. (more…)