I’m late in getting to this, but last week on NBC’s Today, Matt Lauer said:

It’s interesting that in 2013, with attitudes towards homosexuality changing so dramatically in this country, there isn’t a single major athlete in a major professional sport playing right now who has come out and said, ‘I’m gay.’ Why is that?…

I have a possible answer, and a new question.

My answer is: For much the same reason that straight athletes don’t come out and say “I’m straight.” It’s irrelevant. Not every activity or field is one where the customers (spectators) need any information about the producers’ (athletes’) personal lives.

Part of what we love about athletes is their focus on something wonderfully beyond themselves: which is the sport, the game, the discipline it takes to be a winning athlete. Call me crazy, but I find it distasteful when any athlete, gay or straight, insists on my knowing whom they ‘like’ or are dating. I only care about their dedication to (and success with) their sport.

Which brings me to my question: why, in 2013, would Lauer think this is important? This isn’t the 1980s, wherein gays had to battle sodomy laws, or the total absence of gay-straight alliances at schools, or certain professional bans. Today we even have States scrambling to support gay marriage. Lauer’s question itself assumes there are lots of gay pro athletes – so, no real job discrimination.

I must admit that I thought like Lauer did in, say, 1993. Some years later, I came into the 21st century. Join me, Matt!

(Hat tip: reader Peter H.)

Imagine opening an issue of Newsweek and reading this:

Hispanic women are today’s version of Uncle Tom. They give their time, money and voices to a political group that aids in oppression. To me, it’s as if, in 2012 you heard of an African American writing a check to support the KKK or of a Jewish person defending the work of skinheads.

There would be outrage, no? This is some of the worst hate-speech you can possibly imagine. It marginalizes and ostracizes people, not unifies and divides.  It continues to Balkanize America, not bring us together to find common ground.

This isn’t a passage from Newsweek, it is from this week’s Advocate Magazine.  And here’s how it really reads.

Do gay Republicans who voted for a party that says marriage is only between a man and woman believe they themselves are not worthy of love? Do gay Republicans who voted for a party that says gay people should not be allowed to adopt children believe they themselves are not worthy of family? And what would gay Republicans, who voted for Mitt Romney’s version of America, do when their beloved jobs that gave them their beloved money were taken away from them because they were gay? Who would they call: Lambda Legal, HRC… Ghostbusters?

I have heard gay Republicans say they vote according to their fiscal needs. So basically a vote is cast for their bank account while they remain spiritually bankrupt. What does it say about someone who puts money and monetary possessions above one’s self, spirit and equal rights?

Gay Republicans are today’s version of Uncle Tom. They give their time, money and voices to a political group that aids in LGBT oppression. To me, it’s as if, in 2012 you heard of an African American writing a check to support the KKK or of a Jewish person defending the work of skinheads.

This type of hate speech against one for one’s political beliefs has got to stop.  “It Gets Better” only if you are a self-loathing American gay liberal who hates his nation and wants to submit to a Government and surrender one’s identity for The Greater Good, or the Savior Obama.  The Gay “Rights” movement is no more than a front for anti-American, left-wing propoganda. 

 The Gay Left and its twisted principles of “tolerance” are summarized perfectly in this vile piece of garbage written by a bigoted, ignorant, closed minded, half-twit actor with no original thoughts of his own.

The Advocate should be ashamed that it is peddling in this garbage — but unfortunately it is merely the megaphone for the Gay Left and it’s angry, never-ending hate toward America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In my last post, I noted how my searches for “Kyle Wood” on HRC & GLAAD’s website came up empty.

During my afternoon blog read, I discovered that Ace was on this story as was Breitbart.

Can someone please explain why HRC castigated Sarah Palin for her silence when her daughter used the word “faggot”, but can’t get around to covering a story about a gay Republican who had been beaten and hospitalized after someone spray-painted “faggot” on his car?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  rusty  reports that “Kyle Wood recants assault charges” and provides this link-http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/176334541.html?ipad=y

Now I’ve seen everything…

Three women identified by their lawyers as lesbians were arraigned yesterday on a hate crime charge for allegedly beating a gay man at the Forest Hills T station in an unusual case that experts say exposes the law’s flawed logic. (emphasis added)

“My guess is that no sane jury would convict them under those circumstances, but what this really demonstrates is the idiocy of the hate-crime legislation,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. “If you beat someone up, you’re guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.”

Prosecutors and the ACLU of Massachusetts said no matter the defendants’ sexual orientation, they can still face the crime of assault and battery with intent to intimidate, which carries up to a 10-year prison sentence, by using hateful language.

Are you KIDDING me?!?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

According to AP, the soldier “accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive items to” WikiLeaks, is using his sexual orientation as a defense:

The young Army intelligence specialist accused of passing government secrets spent his 24th birthday in court Saturday as his lawyers argued his status as a gay soldier before the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” played an important role in his actions.

Lawyers for Pfc. Bradley Manning began laying out a defense to show that his struggles as a gay soldier in an environment hostile to homosexuality contributed to mental and emotional problems that should have barred him from having access to sensitive material.

Gay groups should join us in denouncing this tactic.  It makes gay people out to be not just victims, but individuals lacking any kind of moral fiber, willing to betray their country when the going gets tough.  Tens of thousands of gay man and women served in the military in similarly “hostile” environments and did not break under pressure.  Indeed, many, if not most, of these individuals distinguished themselves in our nation’s armed forces.

We should not stand by when a man uses his homosexuality as an excuse for betraying his country.

Those who want to improve the image of gay people should join us in denouncing Mr. Manning and in faulting his defense team for using his sexuality to excuse his criminal acts.  What he did was wrong.  And just as there have long been bad apples among our number (a Mr. K. Philby comes to mind), so too have long been similarly rotten straight people (see A. Hiss).

Gay people (and those who presume to represent us) should not make excuses for the bad apples among us — particularly when they claim their sexuality made them rotten.  It speaks poorly of people like us if we accept this man’s defense.

And we at GayPatriot do not.

And people wonder why I cannot relate to Gay, Inc. and the liberal/”progressive” leanings of 90% of America’s gay activists??

Here they are… front and center with their radical messages at another anti-American protest movement.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

What is old is new again!  The alleged “gay Republican organization” known as Log Cabin has once again decided it is more important to tear down our candidates rather than defeat President Obama’s America-destroying agenda.

Log Cabin – a fully bought-off affliliate of the Radical Gay Left’s Tim Gill – attacked Cain after the GOP candidate appeared this morning on “The View”.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Cain chose to divert attention away from a solid platform of greater liberty and smaller government by indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Log Cabin Republicans sincerely hope that Herman Cain is open to hearing the evidence and changing his mind on these issues.”

Chris Barron has an awesome, and gosh…. FACTUAL…. response to this Cain smear campaign by The Professional Gays.

 Cain specifically says on The View that he hasn’t seen enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality isn’t a choice and he admits that others have drawn different conclusions.

Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people.  Mr. Cain does not support a federal marriage amendment, will not reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.

Back in June I wrote about the left, and in particular the gay left’s reaction to Cain:

For the gay left none of this will matter.  All that matters is the group hug.  For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people, all that matters is that they get the pat on the head – the assurance that they are ok.  I don’t need the group hug, nor do I need affirmation from the government that I am ok.  What I need is a President and a Congress that will pursue policies that will make life better for me and my family.

It is time the gay community put real policy before emotional theater, and that is exactly why gay people should be willing to listen to and consider the candidacy of Herman Cain.

The Gay Left, including their paid-off Log Cabin affiliate, are too invested in the Obama Democrats to have a rational response to the Cain candidacy.  Too bad.  But their hatred of conservatives is too blatant to ignore these days.  So at least there is that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Playing on the “Legalize LA” T-shirts and signs once ubiquitous in the Southland, some gay activists, in the wake of the passage of Prop. 8, created a “Legalize Gay” T-shirt, like this one seen at one of HRC’s two booths yesterday at LA Pride:

What makes this T-shirt so absurd is its suggestion that it’s not legal to be gay in America today. To be sure, we still need laws in more states recognizing our unions.

Even, however, without that recognition, gay people who enter into such relationships, even those who call such relationships, “marriage,” aren’t been hauled before federal magistrates (or state courts for that matter) and asked to disavow their romantic inclinations; they’re not being forced to live apart from their partner nor to move to another jurisdiction nor are they being incarernated for living openly with individuals of the same sex. And they’re not being forced to undergo “conversion therapy.”

Simply put, it’s not illegal today in American to be gay. People aren’t being arrested and threatened with a loss of liberty for freely expressing our sexuality. I mean, heck yesterday at Pride, the county sheriff was not closing down our celebration, but was instead helping facilitate it, guaranteeing our right to assemble peaceably.

Let’s not make things seem they are worse than they are — and acknowledge (as most of us do) how much progress we have made.  It’s not illegal to be gay in America.  Indeed, gay people in the United States — and other Western societies — are more free to live our lives openly than they have been at almost any point in human history.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Az Mo in NYC offers:

As far as the original post goes, I never thought I was illegal, or a second class citizen, until people started drilling it into my head that I was….people on the gay left. One day I said, “wait a minute,” looked around, saw wealthy gay men and women, homosexuals in congress, and on TV and realized that just wasn’t the case. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter what someone else thinks of me just as it shouldn’t matter to them what I think of them.

It seems a truism of contemporary political discourse today that if a liberal pundit or Democratic politician can’t defend his actions, he will accuse his critics of harboring prejudices against a particular minority group.

As most of you know, on Tuesday, a blogger at Wonkette, a left-of-center website, posted a piece “attacking Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome baby Trig on his birthday.”  The blogger also suggested that Palin’s husband Todd slept with their daughter.  In response, several advertisers, including Papa John’s pizza, pulled their ad from the site.

Now, Ace reports that the folks at Wonkette are accusing the pizza place of animus against gay people:

In a tweet, Wonkette announces that their former advertiser, Papa John’s, is not only “shitty,” but “homophobic.” Clarification/Correction: The tweet was by “Wonkette” and not necessarily Ken Layne, as I first assumed. Maybe it’s him, maybe it’s some other shrieking ninny. I don’t know who does their tweeting.

Homophobic = not giving gays a pass on every nasty thing they say or do. That is the only possible definition of the word he can be using to get to this conclusion.

The site was just as gay when Papa John’s was advertising on it before. The only difference is that they posted that nasty Trig post.

It’s not anti-gay to hold someone to account for crossing a certain line.  And Wonkette went way over the line in mocking the child of a prominent conservative leader reviled on the left.  As would a conservative blogger who mocked the president’s children — or the children of any Democratic politician. It’s one thing to criticize Sarah Palin and take issue with her ideas, it’s quite another to attack her children.

It is telling that they’re now playing the anti-gay card.  Their critics have won the argument.  Instead of conceding the point and acknowledging their error, they choose to personalize the matter.  They just can’t let the right win.  But, here it’s not the right that’s “won”, but common decency that’s won out. (more…)

It seems for some gay activists, everything is political.  Mark, one of our readers, alerted me to a story about which he, while regularly disagreeing with yours truly, offers commentary that I find spot-on:  ”stunts like this make gay people look like idiots”.  Well, fortunately, most Americans (or so we hope) won’t judge all gay people by the juvenile antics of this one man who wallows in his (perceived) victimhood:

A gay man was excused from jury duty in New York last week because he said that discrimination against gays makes him a second-class citizen and therefore he couldn’t be impartial.

Jonathan D. Lovitz, an actor, model, and singer who will be on Logo’s upcoming show Setup Squad, wrote on his Facebook page, “I raised my hand and said, ‘Since I can’t get married or adopt a child in the state of New York, I can’t possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second class citizen in the eyes of the justice system.’”

And instead of criticizing the man for this self-righteous stunt, the Advocate reports that some activists are encouraging “others to use the strategy”.   Such individuals have so internalized the victim mentality that they define themselves as second-class citizens.  Wonder why they need convince themselves of such status.

This is not to say that things are perfect for gay Americans, but the notion that we’re second-class citizens suggests we lack the fundamental rights and privileges associated with citizens, many denied African-Americans in certain states until federal legislation in the mid-1960s overturned discriminatory laws and practices. (more…)

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)

Uber progressive blogger and Islamic terror apologist Glenn Greenwald is whining about how PFC Bradley Manning (alleged Wikileaks source, and anti-DADT activist) is being treated.  It is cute how in the beginning of his piece, Greenwald goes to great lengths to distance Manning from the Wikileaks story; but by the end is lauding Manning’s treasonous behavior and labeling him a “hero” (cue Berkeley City Council).

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime.  Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months — and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait — under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.  Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning’s detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems.  He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a “Maximum Custody Detainee,” the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

Oh boo freaking hoo.  Glenn and I had a minor dustup on the topic via Twitter yesterday:

ME:  GayPatriot: RT @GregMitch: Glenn Greenwald on Bradley Manning held under “inhumane condiitons” possibly constituting “torture.” // Aww, cry me a river.

GG response:   @ggreenwald: You’d be crying a river – and doing much more – if you were held under inhumane conditions without being convicted of anything

My response: GayPatriot: I wouldn’t have committed treason against my country while wearing the uniform cuz my boyfriend dumped me. He’s a pissy bitch.

“Lexington Concord” at RedState has the right idea as to what to do with Manning (and any other Wikileaks sources, I might add).  It is priceless…

Glenn Greenwald is constantly telling us that the reason the terrorists want to kill us is not because they are regressive degenerates who hate Western values like freedom and tolerance, but rather because they just don’t like our military policies and how we’re all meddling in their business.

Well, I am not a man without a heart, so I am willing to propose a solution to Greenwald’s problem which I am confident the Army would be amenable to. As an added bonus, it will serve as an opportunity to validate Glenn Greenwald’s views on the causes of Islamic terrorism. We will give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back, and remove him from solitary confinement. In fact, we’ll let him be around lots of people. We’ll call an emissary with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and tell them that we have a political prisoner to release to them, no strings attached. We will tell them that we are going to release to them an American who thoroughly rejects our interventionist policies and our military meddling – he rejects them so strongly, in fact, that he did everything in his power to see that American soldiers were killed and that Islamic terrorists were given access to our operational details. Therefore, we have decided to let him go to be with the Taliban so that he can self-actualize and join the fight against America with them.

I’m sure that like John Walker Lindh, the Taliban will be happy to have an American like this on board. So we’ll drive Manning out there to meet them at some safe remote location in Afghanistan somewhere, and we’ll release Manning and let him rush to join his new Taliban brethren.

Then we’ll tell them he’s gay.

Sign me up to help complete this diplomatic arrangement!  I think Manning would prefer my solution anyway:  firing squad.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

If you buy the bullshit being shoveled out by the gay activists and their drones then this is the logical conclusion.

President Obama is a bigot because he opposes same-sex marriage.  So are Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And millions of Californians of different races, sexes, and religious views. 

Nelson Lund has more on the bigoted President, his cabinet, millions of Americans including me, and the Prop 8 ruling.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sure seems that way. (h/t – GP Reader Peter Hughes)

Starting Thursday, Google will adjust paychecks for its gay and lesbian employees who opt for domestic partner benefits to cover for a tax those employees have to pay, the New York Times reports.

As it is now, Mountain View-based Google offers benefits to the spouses or partners of both straight and gay employees. However, the married straight employees don’t get taxed on those extra benefits — but the gay employees do as part of the federal laws.

The pay raise will be retroactive to the beginning of 2010 and will apply only to employees in the U.S. Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won’t see the pay adjustment, because they could marry and therefore get the tax break if they wished.

Please note that Google employees are now getting paid on TAX LAW and PERCEIVED TAX bias; not getting paid according to his/her abilities. 

Sign me up as completely opposed to this.  Shall I get paid more because I have three dogs to support?

Where does this madness end?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia slams The Advocate and Gay, Inc. over their labeling of US Rep. Charles Djou as “anti-gay”.

As the election results from Hawaii’s special election became final, I was thrilled to see that voters had selected pro-gay Republican Charles Djou to represent them in Congress. I know Congressman Djou, and I know his leadership is needed on Capitol Hill. Chris Barron, GOProud’s board chairman, and I had the opportunity to meet with Congressman Djou in March. It was quickly clear to both of us that Djou’s support for commonsense conservative proposals to improve the lives of all Americans, but particularly gay and lesbian Americans, would make him a the type of candidate our organization could support. As a result of that meeting and his answers to our candidate survey, GOProud enthusiastically endorsed his candidacy.

Imagine my surprise the day after the election when I clicked on Advocate.com to see the headline “Hawaii Elects Antigay Congressman.” Were they serious? Were they talking about the same man I know?

However, attaching the label “antigay” to every single politician or person who is not 100% aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counterproductive.

Like President Obama, Djou is not there yet on the question of marriage equality. His positions, however, on both traditional “gay rights” issues (as defined by the gay left) and issues of importance to gay conservatives certainly make it clear that he is not deserving of the tag “antigay.”

Even by the gay left’s own measuring stick, Congressman Djou can’t be labeled antigay. Charles Djou supports the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” to allow gay service members to serve openly; indeed, the freshly minted congressman cast one of his first votes for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise legislation that will begin the process of reversing this discriminatory policy. Congressman Djou also supports providing domestic-partner benefits to federal employees, supports domestic-partner tax equity, supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and opposes efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution with a discriminatory anti-gay-marriage provision.

As if those policy positions aren’t pro-gay enough, he supports a litany of policies advocated by gay conservatives that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans. Djou opposes the efforts of Democrats to make the discriminatory death tax permanent. He supports Social Security reforms that would provide for private, inheritable accounts allowing gay partners to designate each other as beneficiary. He supports free-market-based health care reforms that would empower individuals to choose the best health plan for their family and improve access to domestic-partner benefits, rather than supporting Democratic efforts to expand discriminatory government-run health care. He also supports our Second Amendment rights to lawfully defend ourselves from becoming victims of violent hate crimes.

That’s a pro-gay record. Why on earth would The Advocate call him “antigay”?

We all know the answer to that.  For the radical secular-socialist gay community, any conservative is automatically labeled as “anti-gay” — he or she has to be or it threatens the GayBorg’s brainwash of gay and lesbian Americans.

I’m glad Jimmy has stood up for Djou specifically, but also challenged the childish notion that unless you are a liberal — you are automatically an “anti-gay bigot”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On my way this morning to meet Dan for brunch, I was listening to one of our local talk-radio stations. The host was reading from Michael Barone’s piece from this weekend about the Administration’s inability to call our enemy “Islamist extremists”. I hadn’t read this article when I wrote my post this weekend regarding the Left’s incessant use of the term “hate” to deride not the content of their opponents’ arguments, but rather their motivations, thus avoiding having to defend their own positions against a thoughtful rebuttal. But Barone gives me even more to think about, when he concludes, after lining out several instances of American leaders’ trepidation to call our enemy by name (emphasis added by me):

My theory is that these well-intentioned folk see the American people as a howling mob. They think that if Americans find out that Islamists are attacking us, they will go out and slaughter innocent Muslims. They think that Americans are incapable of understanding the simple truth that while most terrorists are Islamists, the large majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

Doesn’t this sound similar to the argument about the gay Leftists who insist on labeling their rhetorical opponents simply “hateful”, rather than allowing that they might be temperate and sober thoughtful people who simply have come to different conclusions than they have?

This Howling Mob theory dovetails well with the use of “hate” as a dismissive for the gay Left. They are of a piece. If an entire class of Americans believe we (i.e., the rest of the Nation) are all simply unwashed masses without the cranial wherewithal to even understand cognitive subtleties, wouldn’t it make sense to try to pit us against each other by preying on our basest instincts and emotions?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

So, this weekend you’ll forgive me for indulging in a little mindless reality TV. Since there are two members of the cast from Colorado, I’ve been popping in from time to time to catch an episode of MTV’s Real World: Washington D.C. online. In viewing the penultimate (don’t tell me how it ends, lemme guess…they each go home?) episode, I was taken aback by how the gay character, Mike, had been so influenced by HRC, where he had been working during the season. (Yes, quite incredible, isn’t it, that a hayseed with no experience and only in town for a couple months could land a gig working at HRC with nothing to offer them but, well, tons of free airtime on an MTV show? But I digress…)

The scenario in question is that Mike’s boyfriend, Tanner, had come out to his parents, who in turn reacted very negatively to the news. You know the story, even if you haven’t watched the show: They want to cut him off…cut off his tuition, take away his truck, etc. “No son of mine,” et. al.

Now, I don’t know this kid Tanner, and I don’t know his parents. But I can imagine they didn’t want their kid to be gay. Frankly, I’d figure that any parents who have an opinion one way or the other on the subject would probably at least generally prefer their kid to be straight. And clearly Tanner’s parents are much more opposed to the idea than, say, mine were. However, I’m not here to defend their opinion of homosexuality, nor to justify their reaction.

What’s striking is Mike’s reaction and his choice of perspective. Now, granted, he’s very emotional, but he can’t help from classifying Tanner’s parents as being full of “hate”. Can we look at that word, “hate“?

The gay Left has an uncanny knack for painting opponents of their agenda as being full of “hate”. But can it be that someone can have a moral objection to something without it being grounded in hate? Is it possible that parents who feel (however misguidedly) that they must straighten out (pun only slightly intended) their kids do so out of a sense of love instead? Again, not to take their side, but why must the gay Left always classify someone who disagrees as not simply wrong but having only hateful motivations? Why must the gay Left attack the person rather than engage what they see as the person’s misguided beliefs? Or is it that to the gay Left, the only source of disagreement must be from sinister feelings within an adversary?

And in a greater sense, we find that it seems easier for the gay Left to demonize their political opponents as having malignant hearts rather than contending arguments. After all, how often do we see anybody who opposes the gay Left dismissed as simply full of “hate”, rather than engaged and questioned about his opinion? How often are those who oppose gay marriage asked simply to defend their position, rather than shouted down as hatemongers? Those who oppose the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell aren’t given a hearing by the gay Left borg, but rather are castigated as Cro-Magnon troglodytes who simply “hate” gays.

And they wonder why it’s so hard to get their message through.

…and don’t get me started on the use of the word “ignorant”.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE (from Dan):   Nick, you’re onto something.  Once met some evangelical Christians when I was traveling in Northern California.  They hosted me in their home and prayed for me, alerted me to places that did conversion therapy, but didn’t force it on me.  They were concerned for my soul.  May need to blog on that.  

Good point about how gay left wishes to dismisses all people critical of gays or any ostensibly pro-gay policy as basing their opinion in hatred.  They just assume animosity.  And while making that assumption, a prejudiced one if ever there was one, they accuse others of being narrow-minded.

Hey, since Queerty.com and our friend Andrew Sullivan have “gone all in” by declaring Elena Kagan a lesbian (frankly, I have no idea or not…. nor do I care)….

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay … and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.

….then I’m playing this card:  IF she is, is she actually filling the homosexual Supreme Court seat left vacant since last year? 

Oh come on, you never heard of the David Souter gay talk?  Where have you been?  In the same crowd of women that pine for Anderson Cooper…. or the Village People?  Sheesh.

Again, my big question is why does Obama think that being a lesbian is such a bad thing?  His White House indicated as much when Kagan’s name first surfaced after Justice Stevens announced his retirement.

Why is the White House treating lesbian rumors like allegations of vampiric necrophilia? When CBS republished a column repeating the rumor that possible Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is a lesbian, the White House responded furiously. Because lesbians are terrible?

The White House press office blew up. Anita Dunn said: “The fact that they’ve chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010.” Spokesman Ben LaBolt said the column “made false charges.”

On this topic, I find myself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan (yes, End of Days is nigh).  (h/t – Instapundit)

 Is Obama actually going to use a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet (as well as kill any court imposition of marriage equality)? And can we have a clear, factual statement as to the truth? In a free society in the 21st Century, it is not illegitimate to ask. And it is cowardly not to tell.

What are we afraid of, people?  And by “people”…. I mean President Obama and his Gay Leftist Lickspittles. 

The new Democrat slogan: “Live by Identity Politics…. Die by Identity Politics.”

[RELATED - Andrew Sullivan's Confused History of the Politics of The Closet.  Heh.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Huh?  (h/t – Blogger phenom Gabriel Malor)

It’s happened so often that it’s now a cultural cliche: the gay politician pretending to be straight. In most parts of the nation, homosexuality or bisexuality is a clear electoral liability.

Not in Center City’s 182d state House district. There, it’s a badge of honor.

Veteran Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.) last Thursday accused her primary opponent, Gregg Kravitz, of pretending to be bisexual in order to pander to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters, a powerful bloc in the district.

“I outed him as a straight person,” Josephs said during a fund-raiser at the Black Sheep Pub & Restaurant, as some in the audience gasped or laughed, “and now he goes around telling people, quote, ‘I swing both ways.’ That’s quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy’s a gem.”

Kravitz, 29, said that he is sexually attracted to both men and women and called Josephs’ comments offensive.

“That kind of taunting is going to make it more difficult for closeted members of the LGBT community to be comfortable with themselves,” Kravitz said. “It’s damaging.”

I’m not even sure what to say.  I’m truly text-less (the blogging version of being speechless).   I used the category “Leftist Nutjobs” because one or both of them just HAVE to be.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Okay, so there’s been a pretty hot (and to a great degree oppositional) response to my post from last night about Constance McMillen, the 18 year-old (whom I mischaracterized as a “girl”, not realizing her age, alas) who had been hornswoggled (I’m running out of synonyms) out of her prom. I’m gratified so many people are so animated by this, and also glad to have sparked a debate in which I actually find myself with few defenders. It’s the sort of battle I prefer best!

In retrospect, I think I may have been too snarky in my original post.* I was flush with the glory of having witnessed my beloved Rockies complete their first ever no-hitter, thanks to the great Ubaldo Jimenez, so I was in no mood for sad-sack stories.

Upon further reflection, I think, while I don’t agree I owe her an apology, at least I do owe her a much more measured and reasoned address. At the risk of flattering myself that she cares what I think in the first place, said clarifiaction follows forthwith, below the jump:
(more…)