Sometimes, when we face off against our adversaries in the blogosphere, we become less civil than we might be in the real world because here we’re just see words on the computer screen, whereas in person we can see an actual human being.  In blogs, it becomes easier to reduce each person to his political views (and sometimes views as misinterpreted by the critic).

Last night, at the launch party for Outfest, I chanced upon (if chance it was) one of my initial internet sparring partners and found David Ehrenstein to be an excellent interlocutor.  We both sung the praises of the gay and lesbian film festival.  And that wasn’t the limit of our agreement. We also agreed that there has been a cultural shift resulting in an increasing social acceptance of gay people.  Whether or not it was the the TV series Will & Grace (as I suggested in a recent post) or some other cultural event, something else altogether or (more likely) a combination of these (& other) things, it’s a different world from the one men of his generation — and my own — knew when we came out.

Unlike some of his left-of-center confrères, he recognized that there has also been a change on my side of the political aisle.  He attributed it to Ken Mehlman’s coming out, I to Mary Cheney’s.

We also discussed the changes in culture as homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable, with him wistfully recalling the live of poet Frank O’Hara and sharing stories about gay Hollywood stars of the past — and their lovers.  It was a most delightful conversation.  And a reminder that you can often have the more civil of discussion with your ideological adversaries, something which alas this medium sometimes seems to discourage.

While many conservatives, including my co-blogger are enthusiastic about Herman Cain’s candidacy, I have some concerns which I expect to address in short order.  Despite those concerns, I do appreciate that enthusiasm; the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO has been saying all the right things about big government and small business and saying them well.

Saying the right things, however, does not, in itself, guarantee that Cain, or any candidate for that matter, would make a good chief executive.  And while he may have said the right things about free enterprise, he has not, alas, said the right things about gays.

In a blog post earlier today, our friend Chris Barron addressed those comments:

The bottom line is that Herman Cain’s personal position on whether being gay is a sin or a choice has no bearing on whether the policies he supports would be good for gay and lesbian Americans.

Chris, to be sure, makes an interesting point.  Even so, I’m still not likely to back this businessman for the GOP nomination.  That said, Chris is right to differentiate a politician’s personal positions from his public policy proposals.

If you believe, as I do, that social change comes not from government, but from the private sector (by which I mean not just private enterprise, but also other non-governmental institutions), you would want a leader who refuses, as apparently does Mr. Cain, to impose his personal beliefs on the rest of us.

We don’t expect government to make our lives better for us, but to leave us alone so that we, together with individuals and groups, with whom we choose to associate, can make it better on our own.

For the moment in 1995 when I had my first leading role in Log Cabin, then in the Capital Area Club, my fellow gay Republicans approached me wondering why the organization didn’t take on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).  They all wanted to see an alternative to that left-leaning organization.  And even as HRC became increasingly partisan in the George W. Bush era with its then-President Cheryl Jacques producing billboards and stickers with the slogan “George W. Bush, You’re Fired”, the then-Executive Director of Log Cabin refused to criticize her, having “instituted a new policy inside Log Cabin: If you speak ill of another LGBT group, that is grounds for dismissal.’”

In order to curry favor with the gay groups, Patrick Guerriero was ignoring his own base — or potential base.   He could have grown Log Cabin if he showed that his organization was the HRC alternative for which many gay Republicans (and a good number of gay independents) were clamoring.

And because R. Clarke Cooper, the Executive Director of Log Cabin, has been so quick to criticize HRC for prostrating itself before the president, I have decided that come next Tuesday at a Log Cabin/LA event, I will renew my membership — which had lapsed.  I encourage you all to join Log Cabin even if you, as I, disagree with them on a few issues. We need to show that they benefit by criticizing HRC’s partisan pandering.

Now, if we could only get them to call out GLAAD for countenancing hate speech against gay conservatives.

* (more…)

It’s not just GOProud and Log Cabin, right-of-center gay groups, which are criticizing HRC for endorsing President Obama’s reelection more than 17 months before Election Day.  Left-of-center blogress Pam Spaulding, who has long found Joe Solmonese to be little more than a cheerleader for the administration, calls the endorsement “odd for an allegedly non partisan org.”

Over at Queerty, Daniel Villarreal is asking whether HRC is screwing us by endorsing Barack Obama a year before the election.  He poses the question that anyone who has read couple pages of the CliffsNotes version of Machiavelli, sat in on a few hours of PoliSci 101 or studied the legislative process would ask,

HRC! Didn’t your mother teach you anything about flirting?! Don’t put out before the courtship even begins. Wait a little, make eyes, blow kisses, feign disinterest, drop your hanky and wave your fan. Make him earn the golden ticket.

As John Aravosis puts it,

HRC clearly hasn’t learned the lessons of the first two years of the Obama presidency. You don’t get anything for being nice to the man (well, anything of substance – I’m sure that HRC dinner invite is now locked in). If anything, he looks down on people who are nice to him. The only thing this President respects are people who stand up to him. The President didn’t finally start moving on DADT, and finally stop defending DOMA, because HRC was nice to him. He did it because this blog, GetEqual, Dan Choi, the larger Gay Netroots, and a very few organizations like Servicemembers United and SLDN stood up to the man. (Had HRC had its way, we’d still be debating the DADT repeal legislation in the Congress today.)

He got that right.  And John’s aggressive stance on his blog (as well as Pam’s on hers), threatening a boycott of the DNC, also forced the president’s hand.  John acknowledges that, in the long run, HRC may well have to endorse the Democrat, but he first wants Obama to work for the endorsement.  It’s not that they’re opposed to Obama, it’s that they’re appalled at HRC’s eagerness to give the goods away.

At least some gay lefty bloggers do get it, understanding that just wanting to be liked by the Democrats is not enough.  They know that sometimes to get what you want you have to play hard to get.

HRC is not the only gay organization to beclown itself this week.  GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) which bills itself as an organization that holds “the media accountable for the words and images they present,” has just honored someone who uses the harshest of words to defame a group of his fellow gays, those who do not share his left-of-center worldview.

It awarded, Caroline May reports in the Daily Caller, the best blog distinction to a website run by Joe Jarvis, a blogger who . . .

. . . often refers to gay conservatives in language unfitting of GLAAD’s catch phrase, “Words and Images Matter” — frequently using misogynistic language and comparing conservatives to Nazi collaborators.

“One thing about the kapo bootlickers at GOProud, we alway$ know where their prioritie$ lie,” Jarvis wrote in December about the conservative gay group GOProud’s support of tax cuts.

He has also used scatological term to attack conservative bloggers personally. By designating him as the best blogger, GLAAD has honored an individual who regularly defames approximately one-third of all gay people.  Please join me in contacting GLAAD and asking them why they choose to single out someone who regularly demeans gay conservatives.

Gay conservatives who support GLAAD would be wise to ask for their money back and direct it to more responsible organizations.

So patent is HRC President Joe Solmonese’s pandering to Democratic politicians it’s almost as if he were prepping a skit for Saturday Night Live. Left-of-center lesbian blogress Pam Spaulding once compared his interaction with the White House to that of Sally Field winning an Oscar, seeking reassurance that the president’s team still likes him, right now, they like him.

Well, Joe took a step yesterday showing that he is still eager to win the White House’s affection, endorsing Barack Obama for re-election before the Republican field has even been set (and more than seventeen months before the actual election).  Let’s hope he has better luck with his endorsement than did Elizabeth Birch, one of his predecessors who, in 1996, endorsed an incumbent Democratic president for reelection only to have their endorsee sign the Defense of Marriage Act not long thereafter.  Lot of good that endorsement did.  Despite Clinton’s taking gay voters from granted, HRC did not rescind the endorsement.

And while this endorsement (just like that one) comes as no surprise — Joe’s blind devotion to the Democratic party has long been clear — something happened yesterday that comes as an incredible surprise, shattering the firmament of the gay political establishment.  No, it wasn’t the swift response from our friends at GOProud whose executive director Jimmy LaSalvia, within an hour of HRC’s announcement, said the “pre-emptive endorsement” shows HRC to be “little more than a puppet of the Democratic National Committee“.  Since their founding, our friends at GOProud have not hesitated to criticize HRC’s blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.

The real shocker was that not long after GOProud’s LaSalvia issued his statement, Log Cabin’s, yes, Log Cabin‘s Executive Director followed suit.  Yep, R. Clarke Cooper did something one of his predecessors instructed his staff never, never to do.  He criticized not just the executive director of another gay organization, but that organization itself.  And he didn’t mince words in doing so:

By prostrating themselves before Barack Obama eighteen months before the 2012 election, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has effectively told the president that he doesn’t have to do anything more to earn gay and lesbian votes. (more…)

First, on this occasion, I disagree with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  He should let the state’s domestic partnership registry stand.  And as chief executive of the Badger State, he is wrong to ask that the state be allowed to stop defending it:

Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some – but not all – of the rights afforded married couples.

Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.

It does seem I already blogged about this.

But, while gay groups may bellyache about Walker’s actions here, they have helped make the case for Walker’s request of Dane County Circuit Judge Daniel Moeser.  Recall how HRC worked to pressure the law firm of King & Spalding from representing the House in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which, like the Wisconsin legislation in question, was passed by an elected legislature and signed by an elected chief executive.

Other gay groups have commended California Governor Jerry Brown and the state’s attorney general for failing to defend Prop 8, an amendment to the state constitution ratified in the manner stipulated by said document.

For these gay groups, it seems it’s only right for the state’s elected officials not to defend the constitutionality of a law when they don’t like the law.  Otherwise, it’s just jim-dandy.  But, in praising a state for not defending a provision enacted in accordance with its constitution and criticizing an elected legislature from defending a law similarly enacted, they have endorsed the rationale Governor Walker is using to drop the state’s defense of the state’s domestic partnership registry.

Seems some believe the rule of law means the rule of the laws they like, not the laws enacted in a republican manner.

NB:  I revised and expanded this piece shortly after posting it.

UPDATE:   (more…)

Just got a second fund-raising letter on behalf of President Obama’s reelection effort. This is the first piece I’ve seen to indicate he’ll be running with Joe Biden, but only on the back flap of the envelope.

Now, I’m just wondering what gay group sold my name to the Democratic Party.*  Just another piece of evidence that these organizations which style themselves as gay advocacy groups are little more than shills for the president’s party.

Here’s a clue:  my name and address as they appear on the envelope from BarackObama.com is exactly the same as it appears on that of LA’s Gay & Lesbian Center.

* (more…)

In a post on ice skater’s Johnny Weir’s comment in coming out as a gay man about “pressure” being “the last thing that would make me want to ‘join’ a community“, Ann Althouse gets at something that many, particularly gay activists, in conversations on coming out:

Some people think of themselves as, above all, individuals, and when others think the most important thing is their membership in a particular group, they resist. They don’t want to be defined by a single quality, especially when it’s a quality that makes other people see them in terms of the group stereotype, and not personal uniqueness. 

There is a lot in which this diva says, so I recommend you both read her post and ponder these words.

It often seems that the gay rights’ movement pursues the notion of group rights rather than individual ones.  That is is why I believe we need develop a conservative message on gays, independent to that developed by the left-leaning gay groups, organizations which are helmed by men and women who with a background in Democratic politics and liberal ideologies seem beholden to statist theories of rights.

Hopefully more on this anon, much more in the coming year.

Well said, Ann. (H/t: Reader Leah)

A reader alerts me to an e-mail HRC President Joe Solmonese sent out yesterday (January 6), the day after Republicans took control of the United States House of Representatives.

Entitled “Hateful leaders take over”, the missive warned of dark days ahead:

Remember all those anti-gay candidates who ran for office this year? As of yesterday, dozens of them are now members of Congress and the House of Representatives is under their control. . . .

2011 opens with a new, more conservative, more deeply anti-gay House leadership – helmed by right-wingers John Boehner and Eric Cantor. Together, they tried to stop us from repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”They’ve opposed legislation on hate crimes, employment non-discrimination, responsible HIV/AIDS policy, and relationship recognition. And they just became very powerful.

Emphasis in original.  Guess ol’ Joe has determined that anyone who disagrees with his agenda must needs be anti-gay.  Not really the right way to address the leaders of one part of the legislative branch, especially if you want to lobby them on issues of importance to the gay community.

I agree that we need to change many Republican minds on “relationship recognition.”   Hinting that Republicans are “hateful” and their leaders “anti-gay” is not the way to do that.

With e-mails like this, HRC reveals itself (again) for the partisan organization that it is.  Its business isn’t so much helping gay people as it is trashing the GOP.

Comes interesting news this week that an internal Democratic poll shows strong support for President Obama among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Of note, this poll was done before the repeal of DADT last month.

Some serious concerns about the interpretation of this poll. First of all, the poll was released only to the Huffington Post blog and only “on the condition that the full survey not be published.” Whenever a) the internals of a poll are not released and b) the results are sent only to a partisan publication for dissemination, it’s clear an agenda is being advanced by the numbers, that might not be borne out by the actual findings.

What’s more, in such an instance, plenty of questions arise: 64% either “approved” or “strongly approved”. So was that 10% “strongly” and 54% simply approving? Perhaps that’s splitting hairs, but it’s still significant. That the original results aren’t released suggests the depth of support might not be as impressive as its breadth. Another question: Where are these folks? There are no comparable approve/disapprove numbers from the same poll to indicate this demographic is any more supportive of Obama than the population (from which the respondents were separated as being “LGBT”) overall. Point being, poll gays and lesbians in San Francisco, you’ll likely find the same level of overwhelming support for Teh One as you would from that city’s overall population. Bottom line, this poll leaves many more questions than answers, if you’re willing to ask them.

But one great thing it does is offer up once again the opportunity to discuss the following thesis:

As more “gay” issues are settled by democratic means (as opposed to court mandates and decrees), and are therefore taken off the table, do you suppose gays and lesbians will begin to concern themselves with more important issues like the economy and national defense when it comes to picking their representatives? When HRC, Equality Matters and the slew of other left-wing advocacy groups don’t have things like DADT, ENDA, and marriage to flail about, do you think gays and lesbians will start to vote on more universal issues, and therefore gravitate more toward those who share American values of small government, low taxes, individual liberty, and a strong national defense?

To expand on the point to which Dan alludes directly below, the caricature of conservatives being ogres who simply hate gays and want to keep us all down and “would send us all to an island if they had their way” may be useful in this (and previous) day and age when some are still so animated about certain “rights”. But take away those “struggles”, and who would you vote for?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Dan Savage may well be a nice guy and a loyal and steadfast friend.  Having never met the man, I have no clue about his personal qualities.  A while ago, I read his column on occasion, but found it so full of venom against Christians and Republicans and replete with misrepresentations of conservative ideas that I didn’t see much purpose in devoting any time to his thoughts.

I say this because I know that nice guys do from time to time engage in less than civil discourse. I have met some of the readers who defend us in the comments section of this blog.  And despite their occasional off-color commentary (okay, more than occasional), they are swell guys, warm and giving in person with pleasant countenances and full-bodied laughs.  

I would not use the language they do in taking issue with our critics.  As I’ve said before, on this blog and in personal e-mails to and conversations with these readers, they often compromise their own valid points and sensible arguments when they seek to sharpen them with insults.

Many of our critics are right to fault these defenders when they resort to insult and innuendo as a means to respond to liberal criticism.  At the same time, those critics regularly ignore the pertinent facts they (i.e., the defenders) present and the solid arguments they make, choosing instead to focus on their manner of address.

I have not followed the extended threads to some of my recent posts, in large measure, because I prefer not to get involved in such shouting matches (but from my e-mail and the comments caught in the spam filter, I know the discussion has become particularly nasty and intense).  And I’m on vacation where I find my various niblings’ antics and accomplishments far more engaging.

All that said, I do hope those who fault our defenders for their language will hold Mr. Savage to a similar standard and condemn him for what one of his defenders called a “potty mouth.”  At the same time, I wonder why so few leaders in the gay community refuse to take this prominent figure to task for his regular rudeness and his manifest prejudice.

Guess they believe that only right-wingers are capable of narrow-mindedness and hate speech. (more…)

In the wake of Senate passage of DADT, the folks at AOL asked me to write a piece on what’s next for gays.  In my piece, I looked at the process of repeal and the prospects for gay influence in the 112th Congress:

Despite all the hullabaloo over Senate passage of legislation repealing the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces, gay men and lesbians will still have to wait a bit before being able to serve openly, to say nothing of making progress on other legislative fronts.

“After President Obama signs the legislation,” reports AP national security writer Robert Burns, “the Pentagon must still certify to Congress that the change won’t damage combat readiness.” That provision likely secured the support of the two most junior Republicans in the Senate, Massachusetts’ Scott Brown and Illinois’ Mark Kirk, both men with a record of military service.

But this has many wondering how the armed forces will proceed with implementing the policy.

You can read the rest here.

In her thoughtful post on a new gay group called “Equality Matters” (wish someone had instead created “Freedom Matters”), Ann Althouse gets at one reason, I believe, Democrats tried to keep DADT repeal on the back burner:

The Democratic Party gets a political advantage by looking like a repository of hope. But would gay people continue to favor Democrats if the Democrats actually followed through and satisfied those hopes? There’d be some gratefulness, but — unless Republicans succumb to the temptation to say mean things — wouldn’t gay people melt into the general population and, from that point on, vote based on what they thought about economic policies, national defense, environmental issues and so forth? Achieving equality would liberate gay people in may ways, but one of those ways would be that they could vote for Republicans if they agreed with them about issues other than gay rights issues.

She’s onto something.  Just read the whole thing.  And as usual, the comments, if you have a moment, are worth your while.

Wise though this blogress diva may be, she leaves out two things (1) the extreme partisanship of many gay activists and leaders who insist that adopting left-wing politics is part and parcel of the coming out experience (lest you remian a “self-hating” homosexual) and (2) the amorphous nature of the idea of “achieving equality” (what does that mean?).

Despite the numerous bills the California legislature has passed at the behest of “Equality California,” that gay auxiliary of the California Democratic Party keeps lobbying for more laws, either mandating more state spending or encroaching ever more on the liberties of individuals and private (and public) associations.

Better than focus on this amorphous notion of equality which seems to require an ever-expanding state, let’s instead focus on protecting our liberty — or in the case of America today, rescuing that liberty from those who seek to take it away in order to further “social justice” (another amorphous concept).

Over at his blog, Michael Petrelis has put together a list of over 50 people, including yours truly, who have called for HRC’s Joe Solmonese to step down.  It’s fascinating that despite the change of power in the House in Washington, there is no talk for this Democratic partisan to step down from an ostensibly non-partisan organization.  Given his failure to understand the appeal of conservative ideas, Joe is ill-equipped to reach out to the new leadership in that chamber.

And while Republicans may not have won back the Senate, we learned yesterday that the power of those conservative ideas — and their advocates in the Tea Party — helped torpedo the Democrats’ omnibus spending bill.  If would seem that if an organization wanted to have influence in Washington, it would bring on leadership able to adapt to the new political climate.

Not to mention the problem that Solmonese hasn’t shown much of a knack for playing hardball with Washington Democrats, letting them play lip service to the agenda of HRC and other left-leaning gay groups while doing little to enact that agenda.

Now, while I have been as critical of Solmonese as I have been of “Equality California’s” Geoff Kors, in the wake of last month’s elections, I refrained from calling for the latter’s resignation.  Simply put, while Kors is equally as partisan as Solmonese, his strategy of backing Democrats paid off; his fellow partisans held onto power in the (once-)Golden State.  He would continue to have influence in Sacramento.

And yet Kors is the one stepping down while the only individuals calling for Solmonese to step down are activists, pundits and advocates outside his organization.

Guess HRC must have an agenda a bit different than that of actually advocating for gay Americans.  Perhaps, their real goal is turning out gay votes for Democratic politicians.

Just received the news in an e-mail form the organization:  ”Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors today announced that he will step down from his position on March 31, 2011, at the conclusion of his ninth year with the organization.”

This is good news indeed.  Kors has been a relentless partisan while helming the advocacy organization, turning it into little more than a gay and lesbian auxiliary of the California Democratic Party.  That said, given that the (once-)Golden State has effectively become a one-party state, his partisanship did serve a purpose.

While Kors has done a good job of building coalitions among the left-leaning interest groups who hold sway in Sacramento and in lobbying legislators on the left, he did a terrible job helping the opposition to Prop. 8.  Should federal courts uphold that provision, those seeking to overturn it at the polls will need develop a different strategy for repeal than Kors et al implemented in opposition.  With Kors departing, that becomes increasingly likely.  His leadership team was reluctant to work with gay Republicans and consider their ideas.  Even in the wake of the proposition’s passage, gay Republicans (as this blog has reported) were excluded from the various post-mortems, many of which EqCA spearheaded.

Let us hope Kors’ successor does a better job of reaching out to Republicans and showing respect for the diversity of views among gay and lesbian residents of this wonderful, but economically challenged, state.  That way, we stand a better change of repealing Prop 8.

Joe Solmonese, your move.

Our visitor ticker at the bottom is about to click to a big number.

Will we get our 4,000,000th visitor on Monday?

Fingers crossed!

As the Pelosi Democrats prepare to yield power in the House to the Boehner Republicans, I wonder whether in the various meeting rooms of the gay groups in our nation’s capital, they are developing strategies to reach out to people whose language many of the groups’ leaders are loath to understand:  Republicans.

I wonder as well what kind of meetings these groups had two years ago, as Democrats cemented their control of Congress and were about to take control of the executive branch.  Did they just exult in the electoral successes of their preferred political party, believing that because the then-incoming majority was filled with well-meaning liberals who loved the gays that they were sure to act swiftly on their policy priorities?  Or did they develop a strategy to ensure that the Democrats kept their promises on a whole range of issues from repeal of DADT and DOMA to passage of ENDA as well as legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions.

It would seem that the smart strategy would have been to prioritize those issues so as to work on them one at a time, starting with the proverbial lowest hanging fruit, the most popular legislation.  Then, with priorities in place, they would be better prepared to reach out to their allies on the Hill and in the Administration to develop a time-frame for each.  Perhaps, they did develop such a strategy and from my perspective here on the West Coast, I was not privy to it.

But, from the various releases I received from these groups — not to mention the knowledge I gained reading their web-sites — it seemed they had adopted a scattershot approach, reminding us of the imperative of each of these issues instead of choosing to prioritize these issues and push them one at a time. (more…)

In the wake of the 2010 elections, the various gay groups in our nation’s capital, in particular the largest, HRC, can choose to continue as they have and serve as gay versions of the various left-wing advocacy groups or, to shift course and act as non-partisan advocates on behalf of the diverse community of gay and lesbian individuals.  Their current strategy made sense in a Washington where Democrats dominated (as does the partisan strategy of their California counterpart, “Equality California”).

And, to be sure, if you believe big-government to be the means to “solve” the problems facing the gay community, it is entirely honorable to set up shop as a left-wing advocacy group.  The important thing is to be upfront about it.

That said, it’s hard to see how a man of Joe Solmonese’s political pedigree can have any influence in a Washington where John Boehner is now the most powerful legislator.  An ability in the current climate to appeal to Democrats will not help move legislation repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) or recognizing, for the purposes of federal law, same-sex unions.

This is why I’m so gung-ho about GOProud.  They are familiar with the arguments we need make in order to influence a more conservative Congress.

All that said, the 2010 elections should be a wake-up call to the gay groups inside the Beltway that their strategic alliance with the Democratic Party has failed.  It is hard to tell what the future is.  Some Republicans may be willing to move forward on gay issues.  Others may find that by avoiding such issues, they can toss a bone to social conservatives.

Whatever the case, gay groups will have to adopt a new strategy or become gay cheerleaders for the Democratic agenda.  Steadfast, to be sure, in pursuit of their principles, but ineffective in achieving legislative success.

Via a reader’s Facebook page, I caught this clip of Chris Barron on CNN.  What stands out is what he said at two points, points Bruce and I have been making as long as we have been blogging, indeed, were making even before we started blogging:

Starting at about 1:45, Chris begins by saying that we should be “past identity just for the sake of identity politics.”  Then, commenting on the Iowa judges (who ruled in favor of state recognition of same-sex marriage) being voted out, he pointed out that “a strategy that relies solely on the courts is a flawed strategy.”  Hear!  Hear!  Instead, he says gay groups should do the hard work of changing hearts and minds.

Then, about 3 minutes later, starting at about 4:45, he faults the “big-government” agenda of the gay left, pointing out that conservative reforms benefit gay people.

Been waiting to hear this kind of rhetoric on national television from the folks at Log Cabin for about as long I’ve been following Log Cabin.  And now someone is finally getting it across.  Kudos, Chris, job well done!