Reading about the President’s myriad broken promises in my post yesterday on the subject, reader Jana alerts our readers to Allahpundit’s post on the “thunderous applause” the Democrat received when he welcomed gay activists to the White House to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising.  I’m sure HRC’s, the ever obsequious (when it comes to Democrats) Joe Solmonese was among those clapping the loudest.

Despite some gay left bloggers daring to criticize a Democratic President, it seems a good number of gay activists remained enamored with the incumbent, perhaps due to his left-wing credentials or that (D) after his name which, for many gay leftists, is the equivalent of a “Get out of Jail Free” card, excusing a politician of misdeeds and broken promises.

This applause shows that  all too many gay activists will give the benefit of the doubt to Democrats.  For them, left-wing ideology and partisan loyalty seem more important than integrity on gay issues and a record of achievement.  They’re partisans first.  So, bear that in mind when they criticize us of being “self-hating” for not toeing the liberal line and supporting the Democratic Party.

At least, we, consistent with the ideals of modern American conservatism, have the sense to expect little of our politicians on gay issues.  They mask their partisan fidelity in the Democrats’ supposed commitment to gay people.

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.

Although the “White House has not publicized” it,

. . . President Obama has invited some [gay and lesbian] leaders to an East Room reception next Monday to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the 1969 Greenwich Village demonstrations that gave birth to the modern gay rights movement.

I’m just guessing gay Republicans didn’t make the guest list.   It will be interesting to see who did.

According to the New York Times, Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said, “This event was long planned as a way to applaud these individuals during Pride month.”

Methinks this is mere window dressing, or, to put it in political terms, damage control.  Just more political theater.  One individual “who received the invitation said the White House was billing the event as a celebration.”  At a celebration, the guests there may not have much on a chacnce to confront the President on his failure to live up to his campaign promises.  But, maybe they will.

I’ll reserve all further judgment until after the event takes place next week.

(H/t:  Riehl World View.)

While a number of gay blogs have done yeoman’s work covering the demonstrations in Iran and expressing support for those protesting one of the most anti-gay regimes on the planet, I just checked the websites of three major gay groups in the United States.

Yup, you guessed it.  Not even a staement of suport.

What a big contrast of photos this weekend…. heroes and cowards

While the Iranian people are yearning for freedom from a dictator and putting their lives on the line — President Obama chooses not to golf this weekend, but rather to go get some ice cream.

I am confident that Presidents Reagan, Bush (both) and Clinton would be forcefully encouraging pro-democracy efforts in Iran — as their policies have dictated throughout those years.  While we are on the verge of a huge victory for freedom in the Post 9/11 world, our President fiddles.

The best President Obama can do is send chilly signals to the Iranian people while the ice cream slides down his throat.  Pathetic and disappointing.

[RELATED:  Obama Dithers While Iran Burns - The Weekly Standard]

Obama supporters defended his silence. Anything he said to endorse the protests, they argued, would taint the protesters’ message and damage their cause.

The protesters, many of whom held signs written in English, seemed to disagree. “On several occasions, I’ve had supporters of Mousavi say we need President Obama,” reported CNN’s Reza Sayah, from Tehran. When Wolf Blitzer asked Sayah directly whether the protesters want Obama to speak out in support of their cause, Sayah responded: “I think they do, but they’re realistic.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I worked on Pajamas piece on the President’s benefits package for the same-sex partners of federal employees, I kept coming across articles and blog posts indicating the disappointment and even betrayal gay Democrats feel at the President’s failure to follow through on the campaign promises he made to our community.  This morning, when I checked my e-mail, my in-box was inundated with missives from readers alerting me to other such posts and articles.

After my mid-day workout when I returned home to surf the web and blog, I found more such pieces, with straight blogger Glenn Reynolds alone linking three four just today.

While I certainly understand their frustration of gay Democrats, I almost feel like telling them, “I told you so.”  (I guess I just did that.)

Democratic politicians, with a few notable exceptions, have an uncanny habit of breaking the promises they make to gay people.  Aware of the affluence of our community and the dedication of our activists, Democrats know that by appealing to our interests, they can increase both their campaign contributions and their grassroots efforts.

Their enthusiasm for Democrats who say the right things, however, seems a little unmoored from reality.  Then-President Bill Clinton backed down on his promise to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military as soon as he saw there was a political cost.  He signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 when he thought he might help him with evangelical voters.  Obama sat in a church for twenty years where a racist pastor spewed anti-gay rhetoric and never once challenged him on his prejudiced attitude toward homosexuals.

Now, some may say, “Well, Dan, you support the GOP and Republicans are no better, perhaps even worse.”  And I’ll reply, “Yep, you’ve got a point, my party’s not perfect, but at least my guys don’t treat our community like a cash cow, milking it when they need funds and hiding it in the barn when they fear it might offend the neighbors.”  it’s not just that.  As a conservative, I don’t believe state action is the appropriate means to advance social acceptance of gay people. (more…)

Back in 2005, after reading this comment from our reader Mike, then blogging at Republic of M, I read the piece he had encouraged us all to read, the then-Prism Warden’s piece on his evolution away from the gay left.  So good did I find it that I just had to post on it, delighted to discover not only another thoughtful blogger, but a smart young man offering a truly unique perspective on the world at large and gay issues in particular, with a particular affection for a certain baseball player.

Soon that Prism Warden (AKA Robbie) and I started corresponding and I read his blog on a regular basis.

I’d like to believe it was my post which drew Robbie’s good work to the attention of a larger audience, but more likely it was just the quality of his writing.  Well, that adorable young blogger moved onto the Malcontent before the blog petered out.  Well, it’s back with him at the helm and better than ever.  In a recent post on the gay activists boycotting a Democratic fundraising dinner, Robbie shows just exactly why so many have come to appreciate his writing:

However, the situation is far from a devolution in gay partisanship. While being hailed as the strongest action yet by GLBTers against a Democratic administration, it seems not a single prominent blogger mentions the ridiculous submissive position they placed themselves in by spending the last twenty years being unfailingly loyal and protective of a national party that has gleefully abused their generosity while daring them to do anything about it.

To whit, the DNC fundraiser’s very existence puts in a stark light the Democratic Party’s usual treatment of the gay community as little more than a cash cow to be milked to the point of bruising. Imagine this, timed to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, during a Pride month, the DNC “celebrates” these milestones by deigning to give prominent gays the privilege of paying them to mutter nice things. Could the party any more plainly and harshly say “Hooray for you! Now pay us.”

He goes on to imagine the tongue-lashing Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese’s delivered to leading Washington Democrats for their failure to follow through on campaign promises to the gay community.  That lickspittle will continue his kowtowing to the Democratic powers that be in our nation’s capital.  As Robbie so acidly notes:

If the gay community were a fifth as serious in opposing Democratic intransigence as they were complaining about Republicans, they’d probably start outing Democratic staffers in the Department of Justice. That, of course, will never be forthcoming.

As with anything by Robbie, just read the whole thing.  And now that Malcontent’s back, make sure to set your bookmarks accordingly.

Slightly more sanguine about the benefits package the President has put together for same-sex partners of federal employees, I still see political posturing at play in the Democrat’s move and said as much in a piece I wrote for Pajamas.  A bone it may be, but a bone with a little meat on it.

Here’s a taste:

With two prominent gay activists, one-time Friend of Bill (Clinton) David Mixner and blogger Andy Towle  bowing out of a Democratic fundraising dinner to be headlined by Vice President Joe Biden later this month, the Obama Administrtion is feeling the heat from the President’s failure to follow through on campaign promises he made to the gay community.

Obama has backtracked on his pledge to repeal the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy barring gay people from serving openly in the military.  The Administration has sidelined legislation to repeal the ban until 2010, with even openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) concurring with his party’s decision to defer consideration of the issue.

Not only have Democrats deferred on Obama’s campaign promises, but the Administration has actively sought to to uphold one law, the Defense of Maraige Act (DOMA), which, candidate Obama pledged to repeal.  DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man one woman and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Earlier this month, Justice Department lawyers filed a legal brief in a Santa Ana, CA federal court defending that law.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.

I strongly encourage Bay Area GayPatriot readers to join leftie blogger Michael Petrelis in rallying today, Thursday, June 18, 2009, from 5-6 PM at Harvey Milk Plaza in “friendship and solidarity with the democratic-loving people of Iran.”  It would be great to have some conservative gays there both to show our support for  people suffering under the hand of an oppressive Islamofascist state and to express our gratitude to Petrelis for being such an advocate for our fellows in Iran.  And he’s singled out conservatives who speak out for gay people.

This is not the first time Petrelis has organized on behalf of Iranian gays.  He has staged protests before at Harvey Milk Plaza “over Iran’s hanging of two gay teenagers in Mashad in 2005.”  He reminds participants to wear green.  Let’s make sure American gay conservatives stand together with our San Francisco liberal brethren on behalf of all Iranians, but particularly our gay fellows, suffering under the lash of a brutal tyranny.

Something tells me HRC will not be sending a representative.  I wonder if any gay group will.

I won’t be able to trek up to the Bay Area, but will be wearing green all day to show my solidarity with the Iranian people.  Please do the same.

Reading yesterday that some prominent gay donors to the Democrats were pulling out of a party fundraising dinner later this month because the President has been backtracking on promises he made to the gay community helps illuminate San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s political strategy.  It becomes increasingly clear that his decision to direct city authorities to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 was a ploy to curry favor with the gay community in anticipation of a future gubernatorial bid.

And now with his rainbow “Newsom 2010,” signs, we see how it’s tapping into our community’s enthusiasm for his actions as he begins that campaign.

With these prominent gay figures pulling out of the national Democratic fundraiser, we are reminded just how generous gay people have been to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates.  While we may not be as demographically strong as some activists might claim, we are a relatively affluent community, thus a ready source of campaign cash for political candidates.

So, Newsom sought to become a folk hero among gays in order to raise money from affluent homosexuals and to seek volunteers among impassioned activists for his 2010 campaign.  And Newsom supporters were out in force at the Gay Pride festival this past weekend in Los Angeles.  His rainbow signs and stickers were ubiquitous.  Those very signs indicated his recognition of the role gay people play in California Democratic politics.

He marched with his supporters in Sunday’s parade:

Newsom’s pandering to the gay community is a smart political strategy.  It could put him in a good position to win a potentially crowded Democratic primary.  Enthusiastic gay people are more likely to vote than other groups.

It’s not clear, however, how much this will help him in the general election.Indeed, should a proposition appear on the fall 2010 ballot to repeal Prop 8, they would energize evangelical voters–and Republicans would already be energized to vote against big-spending Democrats.  That could diminish Newsom’s chances.

Right now, the San Francisco Mayor is focused on winning his party’s gubernatorial nomination.  And he seems to be doing all the right things to tap into the financial resources of an affluent community and the energy of that community’s overly politicized activists.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the campaign last fall against Proposition 8 was how readily opponents of the initiative used the most hateful language to slur their opponents as haters. So self-righteous were they in their cause that they assumed that only those with malicious motives could support the measure.

In the course of the campaign, however, those promoting the proposition rarely attacked the opponents with the vehemence of those opponents used against them.

I was reminded of this at our GayPatriot dinner earlier this week.  A reader (whom I had not previously met) joined us and recalled their rhetoric exactly as I had. He too reported how vicious opponents of the initiative had been, nearly bringing him (a young gay man) to vote in favor. 

Yet, this reader’s words reminded me of my thoughts last fall when I voted against Prop 8. While I didn’t think it was appropriate for the state constitution to define marriage, I also didn’t want the haters to win. From all the hateful e-mails I received from the “No” side* and the speeches and conversations I heard, the hatred came primarily from the gay marriage side, those how like me, opposed the constitutional amendment.

I was no alone. In hist post on wavering before voting “No,” Wesley says he had wanted to “punish” those who had made an anti-Mormon ad (ostensibly to oppose 8).  He too was offended by the rhetoric of Prop 8 opponents. (more…)

Taking issue with critiques that Bruce and I leveled against President Obama for his silence on the plight of gays living under Islam in his celebrated (by his acolytes) Cairo speech to the Muslim world and the failure of the gay groups to fault that silence, one of our critics contended the President did speak out on behalf of gays in Islamic nations in his general defense of the ideals of Western society (even if that Democrat did not define them as such):

[The President said:] ‘But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.’

[And our critic pointed out:] Yeah, its not a big fanfare, but homosexual lifestyles fall underneath that category. if you’re mad at obama for being diplomatic instead of combative in his language, then so be it.

By that very argument, George W. Bush was a regular defender of the rights of gay people.  While he did not identify us as group, he did frequently point out the benefits of democracy to nations suffering under radical Islamic and other totalitarian ideologies, in terms stronger than his successor used in the speech cited above.

In a subsequent comment, reader ILoveCapitalism quoted several examples of such rhetoric.  If it weren’t for our reader, I would not have realized to what extent George W. Bush had spoken out in favor of rights for gays living in Islamic nations.  Now, that we’re aware of his advocacy on behalf of our fellows, let’s hope gay groups acknowledge his efforts.

We here at GayPatriot have long believed the Second Amendment offers a particular benefit to gay Americans, protecting our rights to bear arms so we can defend ourselves against those who would do us harm because of our sexuality.  Just under a year ago, we contended the that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision was a gay rights’ victory:  “With this ruling, gay people will have greater and more ready access to handguns and so be better able to defend ourselves against gay-bashers.”

Over at the Huffington Post (yes, the Huffington Post), GOProud’s Christopher Barron builds on this notion, holding that Concealed Carry Laws do a better job of protecting gay people against hate crimes than do Hate Crimes laws:

This summer, the Senate will consider the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, more commonly know as Hate Crimes legislation. Unfortunately, the bill, as currently written, will do little to actually prevent violent hate crimes from occurring. There is, however, a way to stop hate crimes before they happen: help law-abiding Americans at risk of hate crimes defend themselves from predators. . . .

A bill in the Senate, S. 845, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA), allows for reciprocity among all the states that currently allow citizens to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

This common sense legislation would allow an individual who is lawfully licensed to carry a concealed weapon in his home state, to also carry a concealed weapon in another state - as long as that state permits conceal carry and as long as the individual complies with the concealed carry law of that state. . . .

According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states that passed concealed carry law reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%.

And I would wager that states with concealed carry laws don’t have as comprehensive hate crimes legislation as do those without laws furthering Second Amendment protections.

Knowing that the gay man or lesbian may be concealing a fire arm would cause a potential gay basher to think twice before assaulting him or her.  The legislation that Senators Thuna and Vitter have introduced would give gay people one more tool to protect ourselves against thugs meaning to do us harm.  Let us hope that other gay organizations join GOProud in lobbying for this bill would protect the rights of gay Americans–as well as those of all Americans.

Kudos to GOProud for pointing out the gay rights advanced by Concealed Carry Laws.

Now that I know that some left-of-center gay activists have lobbied their more intransigent confrères to include Republicans in conferences to oppose Prop 8 (last year) and to repeal it (this year), I realize the difficulty of promoting inclusion at gay confabs and campaigns.

There are those averse to working with Republicans in any situation, even if our support would help them achieve their ostensible objectives.  They won’t yield even to colleagues like-minded on most political issues, yet more broad-minded on the issue of including partisan adversaries.

Given the intolerance and prejudice of certain leading gay activists, it would require an almost herculean effort to secure the regular inclusion of Republicans in gay political confabs.  I don’t know that I’m up to that fight.  But, I do know that some liberal gay men and lesbians have worked behind the scenes on behalf of their ideological and partisan adversaries.  I appreciate their efforts and commend them for their diligence on our behalf.

I had hoped to work with some of these people to secure our inclusion.  I know that many are up to the task, but it might be asking too much of them to press them to work for inclusion of people that some gay activists perceive as representatives of their greatest enemy and whom they define as self-hating.  The time they would devote to fighting for inclusion within gay organizations is time they could not spend fighting for greater tolerance of gay people in society at large.

it’s unfortunate that there are some really hateful gay activists out there.  But, it’s important for us gay Republicans to realize that those narrow-minded zealots are not the universe of gay activists.  There are also some really good folks whose politics we do not share, but who do believe gay conservatives deserve a place at the table, even if they plan on disagreeing with us as soon as we are seated.

At our GayPatriot LA dinner last night, a reader told me that earlier in the day she had heard conservative talk radio host Mike Gallagher, a staunch opponent of gay marriage, call or the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), the Clinton-era policy banning gay people from serving openly in the military.

It’ll be interesting to see if, in the coming days, any of the gay groups highlight Gallagher’s support of gay people serving openly in the military.  The Service Members Legal Defense Nework (SLDN), perhaps the least partisan of the gay organizations, did issue a release yesterday touting a Gallup poll showing that a majority of conservatives favor gays serving openly in the military:

Majorities of weekly churchgoers (60 percent), conservatives (58 percent), and Republicans (58 percent) now favor repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, up 11 to 12 percentage points from 2004.

While my reader reported that many of Gallagher’s listeners called in to criticize his position, in coming out against the ban, he does represent a majority of conservatives.

Let us hope gay leaders reach out to Gallagher and get him to speak out more often on this issue.  They may not like all of his stands, but he may be able to do something to help repeal the ban.  And he does have credibility on the right and, as from what I understand, among the military.

This goes to show that just because someone holds a position at odds with the gay establishment on one issue doesn’t mean he will disagree on every issue.  “Opinion,” as Michael Barone obseves,”is not arrayed on a single dimension, but flies all over the place in two or three or even four dimensions (which is to say it changes over time).“  And so it is on gay issues, where someone can oppose state recognition of gay marriage, yet support the open service of gay men and lesbians in our armed forces.

Let’s hope gay groups give Gallagher some credit for publicly speaking out against DADT and find ways to work with this outspoken conservative to repeal that gratuitous legislation.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Last Thursday, Bruce reported that, in his celebrated address to the Muslim world in Cairo, President Obama ignored the plight of gays living under Islam.  Speculating that no national gay organizations would take the Democratic President to task for this failure, I offered to make a $25 contribution to any that did so by Monday (yesterday) morning.

Looks like I won’t have to contribute to any left-wing gay organization.  None did.

These groups are so predictable.  And this time, their apologists can’t say that this isn’t within the groups’ bailiwick as they (the apologists) do when we fault the gay groups for ignoring the plight of gays under Islam.  Those apologists tell us that this is an international issue, not within their purview as advocates for gay rights within our borders.  But, President Obama is an American leader.

The American President chose to address the Islamic world.  Gays are being persecuted an executed, on a regular basis in many Islamic countries.  The President ignored the plight.

They fail to praise a Republican former Vice President when he offers a more “progressive” view on gay marriage than does the Democrtic President of the United States.  They fail to criticize that Democrat President when he ignores the plight of our fellows persecuted in Islamic lands.

While some gay activists clearly are not lickspittles, ready and wiling to take on even a Democratic President, it appears the leadership of the major gay and lesbian organizations are slavish supporters of Demorats, constantly bowing and kowtowing to their elected leaders.  While that (R) after a politician’s name renders him immune from their praise, that (D) is like a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, rendering him immune from criticism.

For as long as I have observed and particpated in gay politics, I have noticed that, by and large, the diversity at gay confabs is one of appearance, not ideas.  Well, perhaps, I’m being a bit harsh, they do include a range of political opinion from socialist progressives (and communist sympathizers) to what some deem as conservatives, i.e., the Democratic apologists at HRC.

To be sure, there are exceptions, but when in the organized opposition to Prop 8 and now the nascent movement to repeal 8, Republicans are about as scarce as virgins at the Playboy Mansion.

While some of our critics fault me for pointing this out ad nauseum and doing nothing about it, I have been reaching out to the few people I know out here (in LA) in contact with the leadership of the gay organizations.  One person, either at my behest or on her own steam, has pointed out the absence of Republicans to some of those leaders.  I spoke with another individual who reported on efforts within one gay organization to include more Republicans.  And this before I raised the issue.

It seems that they have encountered some pretty strong resistance from those averse to dealing with Republicans all together.

In short, there are a number of liberal gay activists quietly working behind the scenes to promote political diversity in the gay leadership, but they face an entrenched intransigence among what, I would call, a hard-left gay establishment.

I can’t yet single out by name those whom I have contacted and who have responded sympathetically to my concerns.  But, I do want to commend them for taking on a cause not entirely their own, the inclusion of those with political beliefs at odds with their own in the gay leadership and at gay confabs.

Just as not all gay activists are lickspittles to the Democratic Party, not all gay activists are committed to the exclusion of Republicans.

I realize now that, even with some allies on the gay left, it is quite a daunting task to fight for the inclusion of Repubilcans in the efforts to overturn 8.  And I’m not quite sure this is my fight.  For now, let me point out that not all prominent gay activists suppot the exclusion of gay Repubicans.  Some actually are quietly working for our inclusion.  It’s just that they’re up against a determined cadre of intolerant zealots who see attacking Republicans as an article of faith–and perhaps their primary purpose.

These activists are “STARTING TO NOTICE that Obama is not about to do anything for them.“

So it seems that not all gay and lesbian activists are bowing and scraping to this Democratic President, some are speaking out about his inaction on issues near and dear to their hearts.  According to Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin at Politico:

Gay rights campaigners, most of them Democrats who supported Obama in November, have begun to voice their public frustration with Obama’s inaction, small jokes at their community’s expense and deafening silence on what they see as the signal civil rights issue of this era.

Simply put, the White House prefers political expediency to principle:

The White House has been reluctant to spend its political capital pushing Obama’s highest-profile pro-gay positions believing, White House allies say, that it could detract from priorities like health care. And it may be even less likely to do next year, with midterms approaching.

With Barack Obama, it’s all about getting and retaining power for himself and his partisans.

Some new kind of politics. Kudos to those gay activists who are calling him out and taking him to task for his failure to follow through on his campaign promises.

When it comes to Democratic politicians, all but a few gay activists swoon when a politician in (or pursuing) power pays lip service to “gay rights” or “equality” or whatever is the gay leftist watchword of the day.  And while they may grouse and they may grumble when that Democrat with soaring rhetoric fails to follow through on his campaign promise(s), that failure won’t dampen their enthusiasm.  Recall how HRC refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton even after he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

And now they’re all but tripping over themselves to sing President Obama’s praise despite that Democrat’s failure to follow through on his campaign promise to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  Even the unhappy Barney Frank, supposedly an advocate for gay issues, has been so captivated by Obama’s charisma that he’s defending his party’s plan to go slow (i.e., ignore) action on that promise.

Former Vice President Cheney frank remarks on gay marriage further expose the Democrat’s mealy-mouthed record on gay issues (”equivalent rights” anyone?), some, including blogress Dr. Melissa Clouthier, are wondering why gays don’t get mad at Obama:

President Obama knows [gay marriage] is a political loser. So do gay activists. For the greater good, gay activists won’t push the President. They will hypocritically maintain their silence. They will be willingly silenced by the President because it serves the Democrat’s purpose.

Is anyone astonished and appalled at the hypocrisy around this issue? We shouldn’t be. The Left has a long record of political expedience around this and other social issues. Remember President Clinton’s treatment of women? Yeah. And they love, love, loved him!

To the gay left, it’s not about ideas, not about principles, not even about gay people, it’s all about keeping Democrats in power.  And when those Democrats take power, all too many gay activists fawn on elected Democrats as do the mind-numbed peasantry in a monarchy no matter what abuse the monaarch heaps out.

At the close of this song, Deborah Kerr well describes how gay activists react to Democrats in power, always “bowing” and “kowtowing”:

When Pajamas Media asked me to write a piece on former Vice President Cheney’s recent reiteration of preference of a federalist approach to same-sex marriage, I decided to see what the various gay groups were saying about this good man’s recent comments. What I found should not be a shock to those who read this blog.  Indeed, it fits their pattern.  That pesky little (R) after a politician’s name renders him all but immune from praise (from gay groups).

Let me whet your appetite with a few paragraphs from that article:

Two weeks ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute “on the serious and ongoing threat terrorism poses to the United States.” He defended the Bush Administration’s record in the War on Terror and took issue with some of the criticisms and policies of the current President.

It was a good speech, earning him high marks across the political spectrum, particularly among conservatives, eager to hear our ideas defended with such vigor and conviction.  As Cheney burnished his conservative credentials at AEI last month, on Monday, in remarks at the National Press Club, he showed that he does not toe the party line on all issues.  He once again parted company with George W. Bush, the man who tapped him as his running mate and in whose Administration he served loyally for eight years, on gay marriage.  The former Vice President reiterated a point he has made publicly at least since the 2000 vice presidential debate, that we should take a federal approach to recognition of same-sex unions:

I think that freedom means freedom for everyone.  And, as many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.

You can read the rest here.