in response to an Advocate piece contending that “Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton uses homophobic term to describe President Obama’s foreign policy“, Richard Grenell wrote a letter to the Advocate, taking issue with their assessment.  As the magazine has yet to publish his letter, we are posting it here:

The Advocate’s Michelle Garcia’s latest piece fails to mention that John Bolton has been a consistent defender of gay rights, gay marriage and a critic of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell before it was overturned, Garcia also fails to show how Bolton’s comment describing President Obama as a weak leader is in anyway homophobic.

I also find it ironic that while The Advocate has consistently refused to report on John Bolton’s early support for Log Cabin Republicans and gay rights, they jump to write a phony and purposefully deceptive piece about him – all because he is a Republican. Calling a conservative friend of our community homophobic is a self-inflicted wound. Are Advocate writers so in the tank for the Democrats that they attack a supporter of gay rights just because he’s not a Democrat? Garcia’s story is the perfect example of how the old gay guard and its magazine of choice is out of touch with gay Americans today. Yesterday’s warriors of acceptance have morphed into today’s liberal intolerants. This is the exact faux outrage that makes The Advocate the magazine of your old gay uncle. It isn’t a serious place for news or information.

Please note that I merely cut and pasted the letter without adding — or altering a word.

Seems the conservative media is doing what the gay media won’t: call out gay organizations for their hypocrisy. Breitbart reports:

When CNN’s Roland Martin sent out a series of Tweets about an underwear commercial starring soccer standout David Beckham GLAAD snapped into action.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation claimed Martin’s Tweets were tantamount to gay bashing, and Martin had to undergo the standard public deprogramming effort to escape from future punishment.

Just ask film director Brett Ratner how that feels.

But when BuzzFeed’s Michael Hastings fired off a Tweet that questioned the masculinity of Richard Grenell, an openly gay political consultant who recently worked for Mitt Romney, the gay rights group went silent.

Breitbart News reached out to GLAAD’s PR arm twice over the last seven days for comment.

The group chose not to respond.

Maybe they should change the name of their outfit from GLAAD to GLAAD-EDACRGL (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation — Except for Defamation Against Conservative and Republican Gays and Lesbians).

By the way, it’s now been more than a month since Dan Savage uttered his “hateful remarks” in a public forum and still HRC hasn’t spoken up.

Every now and again, when a social conservative garners headlines for an anti-gay rant, a reader will e-mail me (or offer a comment) asking why I didn’t cover it — or, in a less civil manner, suggesting that my silence indicates an indifference to right-wing animus.

My basic response to such inquiries is simple:  (1) other blogs and news sites already cover that story and (2) I just don’t have time to cover every topic of concern.

Moreover, we try to cover the stories that aren’t covered — particularly one story of concern to gay Republicans and conservatives that the media, even the gay media, seem intent on ignoring.  As I put it yesterday in my post on civility:

My most recent post on the Grenell matter should have been an occasion for our readers to consider yet again the most unreported story in the gay media  – and indeed a social phenomenon that only receives passing notice even in the conservative press, that of the of strong intolerance among certain liberals toward people like us, gay conservatives.

Richard Grenell observed that “Some of the most hateful, mean-spirited intolerant comments about me being the foreign policy and national security spokesman for Governor Romney … were coming from the left.”  (Emphasis added.)

Now, whenever we bring up this topic, some of our liberal readers will accuse us of whining.  Does that mean then that they’re whining when they point to anti-gay animus among social conservatives?

We see the media reporting stories of that animus, but where pray tell, do we see stories about anti-gay conservative animus among the supposedly enlightened set?

UPDATE:  GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia passes on these reports of his organization standing up to the left-wing intolerance described above.

My most recent post on the Grenell matter should have been an occasion for our readers to consider yet again the most unreported story in the gay media  – and indeed a social phenomenon that only receives passing notice even in the conservative press, that of the of strong intolerance among certain liberals toward people like us, gay conservatives.

Indeed, there are liberal hate sites whose bitter, negative bloggers devote the better part of their time to leveling personal attacks on conservatives, reserving a particular venom for right-of-center gays who do not toe the “equality” party line.

Given how regularly these sites misrepresented my arguments, I haven’t checked them since George W. Bush was president.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of our readers, on both side of the political aisle, have stooped to the level of the hate bloggers in leveling personal attacks on others who have chimed in, offering opposing points of view.  In recent days, I have been checking the comments section less and less frequently.  And when I do, it often feels foreign to me as if it’s part of the blog entirely independent of its bloggers.

So, once again, I ask, readers, please keep the comments civil.  You diminish the quality of your own arguments, making your case far less compelling, when you make assumptions about or level ad hominem attacks against your ideological adversaries.

And all this in a post about the hateful, mean-spirited attacks a prominent gay conservative received.  Those on the left help make my point while those on the right diminish theirs.

When it comes to gay people in the Mormon faith — or in evangelical denominations — you can count on our friends in the media to detail the oppression they suffer even if the only evidence of said oppression is the narrative the journalists provide.

Our friend Sonicfrog caught the Advocate peddling this very narrative in the story of the death of a Gay Mormon man.  The headline contends that his suicide “points up tensions“, but the tensions they write about come not from the details of the man’s life, but from the commentary of “some”:

As friends mourn the death of Chris Wayne Beers, a gay man and former Mormon missionary and church employee who took his own life Sunday, some are noting tensions between LGBT people and the church, which opposes gay relationships.

The only person quoted in the Advocate’s piece didn’t even know Beers: “While struggles with his faith may not have been the direct reason he took his own life,” this man said, “I’m hard pressed to imagine that there isn’t an indirect cause, at least. . . .” This leads Sonic to quip with a question, “Project much?”

There is no indication in the article that he was very devout, or that his family had dis-owned him. The main interview of the article didn’t even know the guy. Mitch Mayne does not give any indication of knowing any of the details of this mans life.

Read the whole thing.  My blogging pal notes further that on Beers’s “memorial page, there is a reference to the fact that his own brother Jeff had also passed away. That could be just as much or more of a weight on Mr Beers than the conflict between church and being gay.” (more…)

Last night, I had planned a followup post on the Sheriff Babeu hullabaloo quite different from the one I am about to write.  I changed my mind when most of the stories I tracked down boiled down to “he said/he said” versions of events; I did not want to delve into the man’s private life.

So, instead, I’ll wonder at the media coverage of the matter.

To that end, I was greatly helped by reader Peter Hughes who e-mailed me a link to this post critiquing Don Lemon’s commentary on the matter. Despite his political angle, the late-coming out CNN anchor got a few things right in his attempt to use the story against the GOP. He, for example, pointed out that the Sheriff “has never denied being gay, or to our knowledge has he ever pushed for anti-gay measures.”

And, to be fair, he reminds us that “there are Democrats like Jim McGreevey who were pushed out of the closet.”

McGreevey, as you will recall, stayed on as Governor of New Jersey even after acknowledging using his position to promote a young man he was interested in romancing.  Not long thereafter, he emerged on the cover of the Advocate, a new hero to our friends in the gay media.  He received a largely sympathetic treatment, with many worrying about the struggles a gay politico has to face.

It’s too bad Lemon only referenced McGreevey in an aside; he could have performed a real service by comparing the media treatment of McGreevey to that of Babeu.  The men are in similar situations–though the evidence of the Democrat’s wrongdoing was far more clear cut.

Our friends in the media did give the Democrat a benefit of the doubt — a benefit they don’t seem to be offering to Sheriff Babeu.

ADDENDUM:  There is an error in the article linked.  Colorado Congressman Jared Polis is a Democrat, not a Republican.  And they left one openly gay Democratic Congressman, Rhode Island’s David Ciciline.

. . .the Armed Liberal thinks “the gay community would be out for blood.”  He’s quoting cited a post from “the Petrelis Files” where White House senior advisor “Valerie Jarrett talking to gay journo Jonathan Capehart:”

Capeheart: One of the things you’ve put a spotlight on, and to veer sharply away from infrastructure, and that was on the rash of suicides of gay youth. You gave a speech to the Human Rights Campaign annual dinner, where you named the victims. You talked about the President’s commitment to making a more inclusive, tolerant, accepting country. Why did you feel it was important to deliver that message, and deliver it there?

Jarrett: Well, I think what we’ve seen over the last few months are some very tragic deaths of young people, our children. And avoidable deaths. They were driven to commit suicide because they were being harassed in school, and driven to do something that no child should ever be driven to do. And in many cases, the parents are doing a good job. Their families are supportive. Before I spoke at the HRC dinner, I met backstage with Tammy Aarberg, her son Andrew. These are good people. They were aware that their son was gay. They embraced him. They loved him. They supported his lifestyle choice.

[emphasis Petrelis]

Armed Liberal via Instapundit.  Lifestyle choice?  And I thought it was only the social conservatives who used the word, “lifestyle” to describe gays.  Petrelis finds it “doubly offensive that [gay journalist] Capehart makes no effort to point out how dangerous Jarrett’s thinking is.”

Maybe he was hoping to join Joe Solmonese on one of hid fancy fundraising jaunts for the DNC.

My second post is up at Big Journalism!  I’ll give you a preview, but you have to go there to read the whole thing.

Imagine, if you will, that the BB gun attackers [in San Fran] had been white. Or from Utah. Or from Texas.  Or Laramie, Wyoming. What kind of wild adjectives would have been applied? We can only surmise. Editorializing against mainstream Americans who are now out-of-favor by the media (whites, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, conservatives) happens everyday on America’s front pages and network news programs. But when it comes to Arab/Muslim attackers — all silence is golden for the American media.

<…>

It is also important to note that the fundamental philosophies of a majority of the American gay activist community have been rooted with elements of anti-capitalism, anti-democracy, anti-war, and anti-Israeli sentiment for the past three decades. You could not have attended an anti-Iraq war rally in 2003-2007 without seeing many rainbow flags (the unofficial symbol of gays and lesbians) mixed in with pro-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush and anti-American signs, symbols and chants.

In order to be gay and part of “the community” in America, you must first renounce “the mainstream,” your individualism, liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the basic right to vote and your patriotism. All those checked? Join the club!

Read the whole thing.  And please let me know your thoughts.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Below is my op ed published today by the DC Agenda on the smearing of US Senate candidate Scott Brown (R-MA) by the gay left.

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls for a special election to replace U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D). Recent polling shows Republican State Senator Scott Brown in a virtual tie with Democrat Martha Coakley. As the polls get closer and closer, Democrats and their allies on the left get more and more desperate. Democrats are unable to defend their record on taxes, spending, the economy, job creation, healthcare or the global war on terror, so instead they predictably turn to smears, distortions and name-calling.

The gay left, always willing to do the bidding of the DNC, is attempting to characterize Scott Brown as ‘anti-gay’. This paper ran a headline that blared “Could an anti-gay Republican win Kennedy’s Seat?” The Edge, a New England gay paper, had a similar headline in December, “Anti-gay Mass. Pol Seeks to Succeed Kennedy.”

Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who deserve the label anti-gay, and some of those folks are politicians. Indeed some people in this country make a living demonizing gay people and our families. However, attaching the label “anti-gay” to every single politician or person who is not 100 percent aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counter-productive. In the case of Scott Brown, the gay left is guilty of being little more than the partisan boy who cried wolf.

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

Despite Brown being in favor of civil unions, opposing a federal marriage amendment and having the same federalist approach to marriage that President Obama has, the gay left would have us believe that the future of gay rights hangs on the Democrat winning this special election. Indeed, Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said helping Coakley win the special election “couldn’t be more important” for LGBT people because a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate is needed to advance LGBT rights in Congress.

What has 60 Democratic Senators delivered for gay families so far? Unemployment over 10 percent, spending spiraling out of control, an expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam. (more…)

Just five days ago, I blogged that “anti-gay” has become an “all purpose slur to silence politically incorrect opinions on gay issues“.  We’ve seen that in the current contest to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat.  Last month, a reader from New England alerted me to an article on gay Boston website identifying Scott Brown, the Republican nominee in that contest, as “anti-gay“.

The editors of the site did not respond to my e-mail requesting information on how they reached that conclusion.  And my research turned up no evidence to support their claim.  To be sure, Brown “opposes gay marriage and supports the Defense of Marriage Act”, but so too do a lot of Americans who do not harbor animus against homosexuals.  They just believe marriage is an institution (which should be) reserved for couples of different sexes.

Indeed, despite his opposition to gay marriage, Brown has not dwelled on the issue in his campaign, telling editors of the Boston Herald that gay marriage in the Bay State is “settled law“:

Gay marriage, which he once wanted to put up for a referendum? “This is settled law” in Massachusetts, he said. “People have moved on.”

Just the other day, in fact, he chatted up two lesbians at Doyle’s in Jamaica Plain. They were so wowed, they asked for a “Brown for Senate” sign.

Doesn’t sound like an anti-gay fellow to me.   Guess the editors at the Edge believe any Republican opposing gay marriage must necessarily be anti-gay.

The Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) best efforts notwithstanding, criticizing the organization does not mean you harbor anti-gay attitudes. If such were the standard, gay bloggers of all different stripes, from Trig truthers (& Obama apologists) to principled leftists to yours truly would all be anti-gay. And while I have not minced my words when talking about the gay auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee the liberal gay rights organization, left-of-center bloggers have used language far more choice than mine to describe HRC.

But, it seems the Advocate editors have drunk the HRC Kool-aid, having headlined their report on the Maine journalist fired for sending an intemperate e-mail to the liberal organization, “Reporter Fired for Antigay E-mail to HRC“.  Here’s the text of that e-mail:

Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!’”

Hmmm.. . .  doesn’t sound anti-gay to me.  I’ve heard gay friends (not all Republicans) use equally harsh language (albeit with different words) to describe HRC.

Now, maybe the good folks at HRC think that when Larry Grard (the journalist in question) modified the epithet “hateful people” with the pronoun you, he was referring not to just the recipient of the e-mail, but to all gay people.  That would then be mighty presumptuous of HRC to assume they speak for all gay people.  They certainly don’t speak for me nor for most readers of this blog nor for countless others American gays, including a good number of left-wing bloggers. (more…)

It appears so.

The nation’s largest publisher of newspapers serving the gay and lesbian community has shut down.

Laura Douglas-Brown, editor of Southern Voice newspaper in Atlanta, said she arrived at work Monday to find the locks changed and a note saying parent company Window Media LLC had closed down.

She said the company’s other publications – including the Washington Blade, Houston Voice and South Florida Blade – were also being closed.

“From my understanding, there was just no more money to keep these companies running,” she said in a telephone interview as she sat with her former employees outside their locked Atlanta office. “We had all been told that the companies would be sold. The fact that we were shut down was a complete shock.”

The company’s financial trouble stemmed from a number of factors. Besides an industrywide drop in advertising revenue amid the economic meltdown, mainstream publications are writing more about gay and lesbian issues, reducing dependency on niche publications such as Window Media’s.

The company had been struggling financially since last year. The company’s majority stockholder, New York City-based Avalon Equity Partners, was taken over by the U.S. Small Business Administration in August 2008, Douglas-Brown said.

Just last month, the Washington Blade celebrated its 40th anniversary. News editor Joshua Lynsen declined comment on the newspaper’s closure.

“Window Media long provided a very special outlet for the gay community to learn about itself way before there were a lot of other places to find that type of thing,” said Michael Musto, an openly gay writer for the Village Voice in New York, which is owned by Village Voice Media Holdings. “This was the gay community writing about itself, and that’s a voice we should never lose.”

This is too bad.  While I probably disagreed editorially 99% of the time with the Window Media publications — their presence as true journalism within the gay community was important.  Their reporters were professional and had a lot of integrity.  For example, only the Washington Blade reported that the murder of African-American teens in Newark was related to their sexual orientation.

I’m not sure I trust the “rest” of the mainstream media to accurately cover gay and lesbian issues the way the Window Media publications did.

Hopefully, the Blades & Southern Voice will be reborn in a new way soon.

UPDATE: Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff has told Politico.com:

“The Blade staff is united and ready to continue the paper’s long-standing mission. The first meeting for our new venture is Tuesday and we welcome the community’s input as we move forward.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A few weeks ago, the folks at GayWired asked me to write their “Hypocrite of the Week” column every other week. Eager to find a wider audience for my words, I readily agreed. Now, either because I was looking to find the most hypocritical individual of this particular week or because this was just a good week for hypocrisy, the more I thought about this, the larger became the pool of potential hypocrites.

Governor Sanford certainly ranked high. As did a number of media figures. In the end I settled on Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), largely because, well, all my other choices seemed to be getting their due in the media. Rather than join the media bandwagon in focusing on the hypocrisy of those individuals, I figured I’d help shine the light on someone who largely escaped media scrutiny, yet whose hypocrisy largely goes unnoticed in the gay world.

For all too long, Solmonese has gotten away with putting loyalty to the Democratic Party and his left-wing allies ahead of honest advocacy for the gay community. Noting his obsession with abortion, I wondered “why the leader of gay organization would be so interested in a problem created by heterosexuals not considering the consequences of their sexual activities.”

Anyway, my piece is up and I encourage you to read the whole thing.  It’s certain to excite some controversy.  As I expect this to be the first of many columns, I welcome your suggestions for future hypocrites of the week.

Thanks to Glenn, I just discovered another gay blogger who holds views on Carrie Prejean nearly identical to my own.  It seems that we gay folks who favor civil discourse on gay marriage are a minority among outspoken gays.  Most of our peers alas remain silent as vocal gay activists and celebrities slur gay marriage opponents instead of rationally responding to their opposition.

Australia’s Garth Godsman looks at how various gay people and their allies in the left-wing media have responded to Miss Prejean’s simple answer that “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman” and asks:

What happened to being able to firstly argue a case intelligently and rationally and then, secondly, be prepared to agree to disagree while respecting another person’s honestly held opinion?

He’s much less sparing in his criticism than I might be (closer in style to my co-blogger  :-)  ).  He too sees the hypocrisy of the left in their hysterical reaction to Miss Prejean while excusing her fellow gay marriage opponent who sits in the White House:

But, let’s face it, Prejean is a much smaller and easier target for the hatred of Hilton and others.

The organisers of the Miss California pageant fell over themselves to piously declare that “religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss California family.”

Does anyone imagine they’d have said the same if she’s espoused support for gay marriage because of her religious beliefs?

But as has been observed repeatedly about the left, tolerance for them is very much a one-way street.

Why haven’t more gay people join Garth, Japhy Grant and myself in standing up to those who would attack Miss Prejean personally instead of take issue with her rationally?   Instead the publicity she generated by stating her opinion simply and civilly to explain why states should recognize same-sex civil marriages, they’re using it to make themselves look mean.  And petty.  

They’d rather insult their adversaries than make their case.

But, I’ve said this before.  I look forward to the day when I no longer have to repeat this point.  But, that would mean that all too many on the left would have to change their very manner of relating to their ideological and philosophical adversaries.

A fool’s hope perhaps, but a hope nonetheless.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Blade, Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, “urged Republicans to steer clear of divisive social issues if they are to remain viable candidates”

I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage. . . . The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.

Exactly.  He has a lot more to say on the issues (so read the whole thing), but I wish to focus on this, one of the things our party needs to do to win back its majority–avoid making social issues the focus.  It’s why, I believe, we should put the focus on the taxes, spending and national security.  If we do address social issues, say we believe they should be resolved by elected legislatures not appointed judges.

The most important thing is to avoid even the appearance that our leadership has made social issues their defining ideology.

Personally, I wish more Republicans would do as Utah’s GOP Governor John Huntsman (perhaps following the lead of his Nutmeg State counterpart) has done (as Schmidt points out) and come out in favor of state recognition of same-sex civil unions.

(H/t GayPatriot Reader Mr. Moderate)

Almost a decade ago, shortly after moving to LA, an acquaintance in a writing group to which I then belonged, raved about how wonderful was the then-new release, Being John Malkovich.  The flick, he claimed, had multiple levels of meaning and would soon rank with the great classics of cinema.

When I went to see the film, I was expecting a modern-day Citizen Kane, but discovered only a very quirky comedy which I might have liked better had I not expected so much.  And so it was last night with Milk.  That’s not to say the movie is not deserving of many of the accolades it has accrued. It’s just to say that, to me at least, it didn’t live up to the hype.

That said, the movie was an amazingly well done piece of cinema, well integrating its own dramatization of events in the 1970s with video footage of those very events.  Very well integrating.  And Sean Penn has truly earned his latest Oscar nomination.

The real problem with the film was the very difficulty of its project, trying to recapture on screen the live of a man during a turbulent time, in this case, the dawn of the gay rights’ movement.  A biopic is perhaps the most difficult of films to make, as a man’s (or woman’s) life, powerful as it is, doesn’t always make a great story.  After the movie, I was trying to think of all such films which moved me.  Only three came to mind, Patton, Braveheart and What’s Love Go to Do With It.  And each changed the facts to better dramatize the hero’s (or, in the case of that last film, the heroine’s) life.

Similarly, it seems the filmmakers added Penn (playing the eponymous Harvey Milk) taping his testament as a means to hold the various and disparate events of his life in the 1970s together.

(more…)

Yesterday, on the plane from Cincinnati to LAX, I finally had a chance to read National Review‘s “Renewal” (dated December 1) issue.  I believe it was their first number published after the election.

As I read the various articles where leading conservative pundits and other columnists addressed the reasons for the GOP defeat and prospects for rebuilding, I wondered if the Advocate — or any leading gay publication for that matter — would devote an entire issue to introspection, criticism of the gay movement and its media and political strategy.

Of course it wouldn’t.

In the regular e-mails I receive from the various gay organizations, I read more anger at the “Yes” campaign than criticism of the “No” campaign.  They can’t get over the alleged dishonesty of the proponents of the proposition.

Well, we proponents of John McCain have ample evidence of the dishonesty of the Obama campaign.  Indeed, a few of the commentators in that National Review issue mention how the Democrat misrepresented his Republican rival’s position in a number of ads.  Unlike the gay organizations, none dwelled on the deceptive ads.  They focused on where our side went wrong.

Once again, gay activists have something to learn from conservatives.

In a post today, left-of-center blogger and activist Michael Petrelis alerts his readers to an editorial in the Bay Area Reporter raising the same sorts of questions he, I and other bloggers of various political stripes have been asking about the failure of the leaders of the “No on 8″ campaign to engage in any instrospection since the proposition passed:

The Yes on 8 campaign, in many ways, out-maneuvered No on 8, period. What we need is an examination as to why that happened and move forward, preferably with a consensus not to make the same mistakes again. . .  . If the No on 8 leadership isn’t willing to open up about what went wrong, the community can’t be expected to buy in to another costly ballot fight.

It’s that simple.

The heads of gay organizations seem more interested in protecting their hides and sinecures than in actually taking any responsibility for the ballot measure.

Who will hold them to account?

[Please note I revised this post slightly to correct typos and to clean up a few paragraphs.]

Imagine, if you will, that in order to protest the outcome of the recent elections, some leading Republicans declared a “Day Without Republicans,” encouraging those disappointed with the election results to “call in Republican” to work and stay at home all day.

Well, some sore losers of the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 are doing just that with their latest childish antic, declaring December 10 a “Day Without a Gay” when people “call in gay” to work.  Can’t these people grow up and instead of extending their temper tantrum, actually work on promoting the idea of gay marriage?

If they’re not adult enough to handle a political setback, are they adult enough to assume the obligations of marriage?  I know that many gay people have assumed such obligations and have shown that they are up to the task.  Shouldn’t these individuals be telling those demonstrating to chill and work on a more adult solution to the current situation, like actually promoting the merits of gay marriage?

Even gay leaders have demonstrated a childish attitude toward defeat at the ballot box.  In an extended rant on her blog, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Executive Director Kate Kendell says “there will never be acceptance” of the result. That’s not leadership.  That’s refusal to accept reality.  And it’s childish.

Just by following the antics of gay activists and reading the public statements of the heads of gay organizations, I would assume that gay people aren’t up to the obligations of gay marriage.  Fortunately, I know gay couples who take their marriages seriously.  That’s why I opposed Proposition 8.

Think about that statement for a minute.  Okay?

Now, let me explain again for those who, like Miss Kendell, refuse to accept reality.  I’m a gay guy.  I socialize with gay people.  I know many who favor gay marriage, have gotten married and who take the institution and their vows seriously.  That’s why I voted “No.”  Unlike me (and others in coastal metropolitan areas), many Californians do not know such couples.  A good number of them voted, “Yes.”  

You’re not going to change their votes by acting like children who didn’t get the toy they wanted for Christmas.

Instead of continuing this temper tantrum, advocates of gay marriage should, unlike Miss Kendell, say that they accept the results of Prop 8.  The should show respect for those who have serious concerns about changing an institution defined for millennia by gender difference.   They must refuse to define advocacy of traditional marriage as hate.  And they must accept their obligation to make the case why this is a good thing.

Most have refused that obligation, resorting instead to repeating their mantra that gay marriage is a civl right without explaining why that it is so (except to quote the Loving decision).  Or blathering on about how the Proposition eliminates a right-as if the state had long recognized same-sex marriages.

I now wonder if mayber I should have voted, “Yes,” on 8 in order to remind advocates of same-sex marriage of their failure to make the case for gay marriage.

RELATED:  Michelle Malkin’s The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob: “Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.”

The evidence keeps coming in about John McCain’s attitudes about gays. And guess what? It confirms what we already know about this good man from Arizona: he harbors exactly the attitude toward gays we would want from our friends, family, colleagues, employers and leaders. He treats us as individuals and does not define us by our sexuality.

Yesterday, when checking my e-mail upon returning home from celebrating the Second Day of Rosh Hashanah and running various errands, I discovered a myriad of e-mails from readers and other friends about McCain’s interview with the Washington Blade, “the first known time a Republican presidential nominee has agreed to an interview with a gay publication.”

He cites his friendship with former Congressman Jim Kolbe and former Tempe, Arizona Mayor Neil Giuliano as shaping his views on gay issues. He calls 9/11 hero Mark Bingham a “role model.”

Asked whether he would decline to appoint someone because of his sexual orientation, McCain replied, “I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.”

While he currently opposes repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, he indicated he would consider changing his position based on what military commanders say:

I promise to give full consideration to any legislation that reaches my desk. On “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I’m going to defer to our military commanders. So far they have told me it’s working. I’m willing to have the policy reviewed to make sure that’s the case, but at the end of the day, I’m going to rely on the commanders who will be impacted by a change in the law.

He supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and offers a responsible view of sex education:

I have supported including abstinence as a component of sex-education programs. Decisions regarding programs targeted specifically at gay youth should be made based on a review of the scientific data to determine what works and what doesn’t, but they must encourage responsible individual behavior.

When asked about his position on gay adoption where he has been widely misrepresented in the gay (and sometimes even mainstream media), he points out that adopion “isn’t an issue the president deals with. I’m a federalist, and this is an issue reserved to the states in our system of government.”

(more…)