Gay Patriot Header Image

It must suck to be Out

Is “Out Magazine” the home of depressed, dour scolds? They’ve been popping that way lately, but you be the judge.

First, they laid it on thick about Milo’s supposed low book sales:

Nobody is Buying Milo Yiannopoulos’ Memoir, Dangerous…

In today’s fake news, alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is claiming his book, Dangerous, has sold more than 100,000 copies.

The problem with that number is that it’s not real. Nielsen Bookscan, which monitors book sales through almost all outlets, has reported book sales for the former Breitbart editor are much, much lower. Since launching on July 4, Dangerous has sold 18,268 copies in the US and 152 in the UK…

A google search shows other left-wing outlets, like Salon and The Guardian, joining in the schadenfreude.

The problem is, their numbers are shaky. Milo is selling fine. He’s entering the best-seller lists at anywhere from #5 to #1; the first 100k run is spoken for and they’re printing more; Amazon has to ship his book slow (when they even have it). As to the 152 UK copies, the book isn’t even on sale there; a minimum of 152 UK buyers paid for international shipping. Fake News, indeed.

Next, via Breitbart, Out Magazine Encourages Readers to ‘Drop’ Gay Republican Friends

“We drop friends all the time for a whole variety of reasons—they messed with our loves lives, they lied, they weren’t supportive—so why do some people think it’s such an outlandish idea to dump them for their political views?” asked actor, singer, and writer Michael Musto in his column for OUT Magazine…

Musto goes on to admit that his social media experience has been more “gratifying” since he’s decided to block any user who disagrees with him…

Here’s a clue for you, Out: By all means, drop us. Here on the liberty-loving Right, we do believe in freedom of association – and we won’t miss you in the least 😉

Replacement Milo

Posted by V the K at 8:54 am - March 16, 2017.
Filed under: Gay Media,Gay Politics

Heat Street has a pretty snarky article claiming that “Twinks4Trump” Lucian Wintrich is the replacement Milo Yiannopoulos for the  role of “flaming, self-promoting, conservative gay dude.” Because the two of them are flamboyant young gay journalists who adore Donald Trump.

Not sure this is going to be one of those seamless Dick York/Dick Sargeant  (or, maybe Al Corley/Jack C0leman is the better analogy) replacements.  It has the feel more of a Charlie Sheen/Ashton Kutcher swap out, although I can’t really say because I’ve honestly never seen a single episode of Two-and-a-half Men. I’m just going by what I’m told.

Also, I’m not counting Milo out just yet. Not that I have any great affection for him, but the dude knows how to promote himself, which means there’s an off chance that when the time is right, he will be able to construct a new role for himself.

Or, he could do the easy thing and join the left and find instantaneous media redemption. After all, speaking fondly of gay pederasty didn’t hurt George Takei, Kevin Jennings, or Eve Ensler.

Death of Fictional Characters Traumatizes Queer Snowflakes

Posted by V the K at 2:13 pm - April 18, 2016.
Filed under: Gay Media

The Gay Left is very, very upset because fictional gay characters are dying fake deaths on TV shows.

Queer TV watchers, particularly female fans, are simply mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore. But instead of merely ripping open the window and howling out into the inky darkness as in that iconic Network moment, LGBT fans are organizing and coordinating to use their might to shed light on an ongoing and damaging issue.

In the past 30 days, four lesbian or bisexual female characters have been killed off on their respective TV shows. It began Feb. 22 on The CW’s Jane the Virgin with the murder of Rose (Bridget Regan). Then it continued with the high-profile killing of Lexa (Alycia Debnam-Carey) on The CW’s The 100. Next came Kira on Syfy’s The Magicians, and Sunday night witnessed the pointed demise of Denise (Merritt Wever) on AMC’s The Walking Dead.

The Gay Left is not very, very upset that real live gays are being systematically brutalized, jailed, and put to death by Mohammedan regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar…

Gay Left Angry That People Aren’t Applauding Gay Marriage Enough

Posted by V the K at 9:28 am - June 30, 2015.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Gay Media

The Atlantic has the madz because there wasn’t enough cheering for the Supreme Court’s gay marriage order.

The vast majority of teams from the four major professional sports leagues in the United States stayed curiously silent after Friday’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling.

Because it’s the job of the professional sports industry to cheer for gay rights, apparently.

The Book of Matt – and how myth is made (and unmade)

When President Obama signed a federal “hate crimes” law in 2009, many people at the time were calling it The Matthew Shepard Act. There was just one problem: The murder of Matthew Shepard, while horrible and grotesque, wasn’t a hate crime (i.e., crime of bias). It had nothing to do with anti-gay bias until after the fact, when it suited many persons’ interests to make it seem like it did.

Matthew Shepard was a methamphetamine addict – and possibly a small-time meth dealer/courier – who was well-acquainted with his chief killer, Aaron McKinney. “Well-acquainted” meaning that McKinney and Shepard had done meth together more than once, had conducted business as small-time meth dealers/couriers, and yes, had occasionally even had sex with each other.

It’s probable that Shepard didn’t know the other convicted killer: McKinney’s then-recent acquaintance, Russell Henderson. But there’s evidence that Henderson wasn’t homophobic and, on the night of the killing, may have even taken a knock from McKinney as Henderson spoke up for Shepard (against McKinney’s raging, meth-fueled violence). Which, if true, would make Henderson’s *murder* conviction unjust. (He would still deserve a lesser conviction as an accessory.)

Shepard’s killing was most likely a criminal-style ‘debt collection’ by McKinney that went wrong because McKinney was a troubled and cruel person coming off of a multi-day meth binge. So, who fabricated the myth of a hate crime perpetrated on Shepard by two homophobic total strangers, and why? It was a combination of personal and political interests.

  • McKinney’s higher-up meth connections wanted to remain hidden, and they would be able to kill McKinney (even in prison) if he squealed on them. Which meant: McKinney would desperately need to avoid naming them. Which meant: McKinney needed to hide his own meth dealings, and therefore, the true nature of his relationship with Shepard.
  • As a short, little guy (135 lb) headed for prison in the late 1990s, McKinney also needed to hide his own bisexuality. Which, again, meant: hiding the nature of his relationship with Shepard.
  • McKinney, his girlfriend and his lawyers all thought (at the time) that a “gay panic” defense, however unfaithful to reality, would be McKinney’s best shot at acquittal (or reduced charges).
  • Certain friends of Shepard may have also wanted to distract people from their, and Shepard’s, meth use and dealings.
  • Gay activist groups – ranging from GLAAD and HRC to what is now the Matthew Shepard Foundation – obviously gained benefits, both political and financial, from the myth.
  • The media gained a big “story”.
  • Once the public/media frenzy started over the (perceived) Shepard hate crime, Bill Clinton got involved in it – at least partly to try to blunt the impact of his Monica Lewinsky scandal. Shepard was attacked on 10/6/1998 and died on 10/12/1998 – roughly around the time Kenneth Starr released his reports and the House of Representatives opened its impeachment inquiry on Clinton.

All this, and more, is cited or documented in The Book of Matt, by Stephen Jiminez. It was published in 2013 and V the K posted on it. I had the book and recently, after talking with liberal friends who were still unaware of the revelations about Shepard, I finally read it.

Despite the horror of its subject, the book is a powerful work of investigative journalism. No such book can get everything right. But this one is readable, gripping, and honest about Jiminez’ own fears and doubts as he slowly comes to understand the falseness of the Shepard “hate crime” myth. The book weaves together a wealth of recollections and coherent detail from dozens of sources who knew Shepard or his dealings, including two of Shepard’s more important boyfriends. The book evaluates the credibility of its sources and, where that may be lacking, provides multiple sources for key claims. (more…)

GLAAD Demands Gayer Movies

Posted by V the K at 8:10 am - July 27, 2014.
Filed under: Gay Media,Gay PC Silliness

GLAAD doesn’t think Hollywood movies are gay enough. They are asking that they may be made much much gayer.  (Demands and boycotts to follow.)

GLAAD is asking studios to give their movies a “Vito Russo Test. It’s modeled after the “Bechdel Test,” a concept popularized by “Fun Home” memoirist Alison Bechdel that asks if a work of fiction has two women in it who at some point talk to one another about a topic other than a man. (Some movies said to pass: “Die Hard,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Gone With the Wind.”)

To pass GLAAD’s version of the test, a movie must have an LGBT character who is not “solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity” and who “must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.” It’s named for Vito Russo, the author of “The Celluloid Closet,” considered a classic text in LGBT entertainment analysis.



Gay Cable Channel Says You’re Only “Hot” If You’re a Leftist

Posted by V the K at 10:35 pm - April 24, 2014.
Filed under: Gay Media

Logo TV – The Gay Channel that nobody watches but you have to pay for anyway because Cable TV is a regulated Government Monopoly – (But I don’t because I ditched cable TV a year ago) – decided to bash some former child/teen stars like Kirk Cameron, Lisa Welchel, and Angus Jones – for choosing conservatism and Christianity over Hollywood’s preferred outcome of drug abuse, eating disorders, and fanatical devotion to the Democrat Party. These heretics have been tried, found guilty, and sentenced to being labeled “not hot” and being subjected to snark from snotty gay TV hosts.

[The Gay Left really, really hates Kirk Cameron for being a Christian and living his faith.]

But Lindsey Lohan, Macauley Culkin, and Shia LeBeouf… totally hot… by Gay Left standards.

What Passes for Sophisticated Conversation on the Left

Chris Hayes (MSDNC’s answer to PajamaBoy) and some guy from The Nation giggle about anal sex.

YouTube Preview Image

Standards… who needs em?

These people put middle-school playground talk on the air and have the nerve to call Sarah Palin unsophisticated.

Hat Tip: Ace

P.S. On a related note, Bill Clinton apparently used to doodle phalluses on classified briefings.

Almost certain Sarah Palin never did that.

Matthew Shepard Martyrdom Story Gets Snoped

Matthew Shepard was a gay 21 year old college student, who was beaten to death in a terrible hate crime because… homophobia.

Status: False.

Stephen Jiminez – not a right-wing Christian apologist, but a gay investigative journalist who values the truth above ‘The Narrative’ – has published a book: The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard.

Shepard’s tragic and untimely demise may not have been fueled by his sexual orientation, but by drugs. For Shepard had likely agreed to trade methamphetamines for sex. And it killed him.

And for daring to undercut the narrative with inconvenient little things called “facts,” Jiminez has been vilified by those who profit from promoting a narrative of imaginary hate.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog recently accused Jimenez of serving as a lapdog of “right-wing pundits, radio hosts and bloggers.” In Washington, DC, gay activists pestered bookstores to cancel Jimenez’s appearances.

In a world with a properly functioning moral compass, Matt Shepard’s story would be a cautionary tale with the moral: “Don’t leave a bar with strangers to have sex and do drugs.”

But in the twisted world where only ‘The Narrative’ matters, Shepard was a complete innocent whose death is useful in villainizing people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Will we ever see flawed gay characters on American television[*]?

In today’s Morning Jolt today (available by subscription), Jim Geraghty reflects on “the latest offering from the Family Channel”, a drama called “The Fosters” featuring an interracial lesbian couple raising a “brood of adopted, biological and foster children.”

“After watching the pilot, where the parents come across so saintly,” Geraghty suspects . . .

. . . that the writers will be terrified about portraying them with any flaws, either because they’ll be afraid they’re portraying gay parents negatively, or because they fear their audience will be even momentarily repelled by characters that the entire show’s purpose is to get you to love and accept.

In other words, if Hollywood is afraid to portray a gay character as human, with strengths and failings, moments of character and moments of weakness, and so on . . . are they really being all that groundbreaking or brave or honest in their creation?

Reading that concluding question, I recalled an essay that both Bruce and some eaders shared with me, Bret Easton Ellis’s overlong, but insightful rant, “In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves,” where the novelist also wondered about Hollywood’s depiction of gays:

The reign of The Gay Man as Magical Elf, who whenever he comes out appears before us as some kind of saintly E.T. whose sole purpose is to be put in the position of reminding us only about Tolerance and Our Own Prejudices and To Feel Good About Ourselves and to be a symbol instead of just being a gay dude, is—lamentably—still in media play.

. . . .

Where’s the gay dude who makes crude jokes about other gays in the media (as straight dudes do of each other constantly) or express their hopelessness in seeing Modern Family being rewarded for its depiction of gays, a show where a heterosexual plays the most simpering ka-ween on TV and Wins. Emmys. For. It?  . . . . But being “real” and “human” (i.e. flawed) is not necessarily what The Gay Gatekeepers want straight culture to see.

Interesting how the views of a conservative pundit and a non-conservative gay iconoclast parallel each other. (more…)

Richard Grenell slams Advocate for misconstruing John Bolton’s critique of Obama & ignoring Bolton’s pro-gay record

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.

Breitbart reports GLAAD hypocrisy (gay media silent)

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.

Media silence on liberal intolerance of gay conservatives

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.

Once again, a plea for civility in the comments

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.

Dishonoring a man’s death to fit a narrative

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…)

Seems media extended far more sympathy to Democrat McGreevey than to Republican Babeu

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.

“If a whiteboy GOP staffer made a comment like that,”

. . .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.

Now at
If Muslims Gay-Bash in San Francisco, Do They Make A Sound?

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)

Gay Left Smears GOP Senate Hopeful

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…)

Dishonestly tarring Scott Brown with the Anti-Gay Slur

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:18 pm - January 7, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Gay Media,Gay PC Silliness

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.