Canadian blogger James Campbell came out as a gay conservative. Familiar story: Conservatives have no problem with him being gay. Gays have a Big Problem with him being conservative.

I play and coach in a LGBT soccer league. After a game one night I was approached by one of the organizers, who warned me that other members were talking about my comments, “found my views repellent” and that I was “making enemies.” I asked him to specify which particular view was so offensive. Apparently it was an anti-Hillary article I posted. I had attacked the queen bee and the hive was responding.

My fiancé’s gay friends pressured him over my views and in turn he applied this pressure to me. He was extremely upset after he found out that one of my favourite books was The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. His gay friends had persuaded him that only sociopaths could enjoy such a book.

Gay men accused me of having “internalized homophobia” for failing to celebrate with gusto the giant publicity stunt which was marriage equality — a teaspoon of distraction in exchange for a bucket of freedom.

I was called a sociopath, a psychopath, “cisgendered,” right-winger, retard, fascist, arrogant and dangerous. I was even anonymously threatened with violence.

This bit was kinda interesting.

For years, while living in Vancouver, I kept my silence whenever the topic of politics came up. I remained silent while my friends chimed in with the canned laughter as Jon Stewart ridiculed conservatives.

I remained silent when my friends said, “Isn’t Justin Trudeau’s gender neutral cabinet just awesome?”

I remained silent as my friends talked about how wonderful they were for starting a petition to let more Syrian migrants in.

Very telling how leftism works. The leftist leadership sends down a message, “Syrian immigrants are good. You must support Syrian immigration.” And that becomes the thing everyone supports, mindlessly and without question. because not supporting means you’re not part of the tribe, you’re not one of ‘the cool kids.’ Being on the Progressive Left is like being in middle school… forever.

I could not stand living like that.

So, this post is written by Jeff; but I may say we/us/our in the following, meaning that I’m pretty sure that other GP authors would agree with me.

From time to time, trolls show up in GayPatriot’s comments section: people who are here not to provide new info or discuss anything for real, but only to throw accusations. They are usually left-wing. It’s fun, because they so often provide evidence for our points about how the Left thinks (or rather, doesn’t think).

You can tell a troll because his accusations are illogical. He usually shows little understanding of our viewpoints as the writers of GP, which may differ among us on some issues, but which are always rooted in our respect for human life including liberty (human freedom).

For example, if you understood anything about our viewpoints, you would know that we condemn violence^^ against gays and lesbians. And against women. And against black people or any minority. We condemn physical violence against anybody who isn’t a perpetrator of physical violence, because we condemn all physical violence that isn’t necessary for self-defense. No peaceful citizen should have to live in fear for his or her physical safety.

Likewise, we condemn anyone who -calls for- violence^^ against gays and lesbians, against women, or against anybody else who hasn’t committed criminal violence. To our way of thinking, we shouldn’t have to say the preceding, because it should be SO OBVIOUS that it flows from our principles. But if it’s important to you that we say it: there it is. Easy to say. Done.

It’s an example of something so basic that we would expect any commenter on GP who wants to be taken seriously to feel the same way. A similar example of something basic would be condemning violence against children – including the sexual exploitation of minors, such as child pornography or pedophilia**.

Rejecting the sexual exploitation of minors is so obvious and basic to being a decent human being that a person should not normally be asked to condemn pedophilia – but, if she is asked to, it should be quite easy for her to say “Of course I condemn it – Done.”

The thing is: When it comes to the Gay Left, and because the Gay Left sometimes tolerates NAMBLA or promotes certain individuals who do condone sex with minors, it may be legitimate to ask the person to condemn it. And when they condemn it, that’s good. You got your answer, and you move on to other topics.

At this point, a gay leftie might say “But then we’re right to ask you if you condemn violence against gays!! Because you tolerate or associate with Christians, and Christians promote or condone violence against gays!!!1!11!1!”

And the answer is: No, Christians don’t. Of course you can find some crazy/fringe person who happens to call themselves “Christian” and calls for violence against lesbians or gays; but the key words there are “crazy” and “fringe”. The words apply because the real world is different. In the real world, all major denominations of Christianity reject violence against gays.

But, sadly, it is not equally true that all major Gay Left groups, Pride parades, etc. shun NAMBLA and condemn anyone who has sex with teenage boys. Sadly, no.

All this came up in a recent GP thread. A leftie commenter asked me if I condemn violence against gays, and/or anyone calling for violence against gays. I replied readily that I do.

Thinking that I was throwing the guy a softball, I said, now you can reciprocate my example by condemning pedophilia, right? He couldn’t or wouldn’t. Instead, he claimed that Christian leaders typically call for violence against gays. I demanded contemporary examples – and the one example that he provided (after some stalling and further hand-waving) was just a fringe nutcase, a worthless example.

To summarize.

1. We (authors at Gay Patriot) condemn violence^^ against gays. (and always have)
2. We condemn anyone who promotes or calls for violence^^ against gays. (and we always have)
3. We condemn pedophilia**. (and always have)
4. We find these things easy to say, when we are challenged about it.
5. We think that any decent person should find these things easy to say, if they are challenged.
6. We do NOT normally want people to be challenged on these things, in GP comments. (Why not? For staying on topic, for goodwill / presumption of innocence, etc.)
7. But, if a troll is going to make challenges on these things, then he or she may expect to be challenged back – and had better come up with the right answers. As we do.
8. In the future, when we are challenged, we may simply refer the troll back to this post.

(^^Violence meaning: real violence, which of course is physical violence.)

(**Pedophilia broadly also including hebephilia/ephebophilia, the sexual exploitation of teenagers or of any/all minors.)

Is reposting a Facebook meme the laziest way to blog? Probably.

Some of our commenters were defending Houston mayor Annise Parker’s subpoena for the sermons, speeches, and private communications of Houston area pastors. As it turns out, it wasn’t just “right wingnuts” who were appalled by this abuse of power. Even the far left ACLU is saying, “Not cool, bro.”

The ACLU said in a statement, “While a lot of things are fair game in a lawsuit, government must use special care when intruding into matters of faith. The government should never engage in fishing expeditions into the inner workings of a church, and any request for information must be carefully tailored to seek only what is relevant to the dispute.”

Following blowback, Parker announced the City of Houston would clarify the subpoenas which were, “too broad.” “We are glad that Mayor Parker has acknowledged that subpoenas issued in ongoing litigation were too broad and that there is no need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston. There was no need to include sermons in the subpoena in the first place,” said the Texas Chapter of the ACLU.

After the gay fascist left used the power of the state to destroy a Christian Bakery for the unforgivable offense of hurting a lesbian couple’s feelings, another gay person is trying to set things right, or at least, less wrong.

Matt Stolhandske, a board member of Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, a coalition of Christians who support same-sex marriage, recently launched an online campaign to raise money for the Klein family, despite his opposition to their views.

Stolhandske said he’s planning to send whatever money he raises in a crowdfunding campaign to the bakers in an effort to keep them from going bankrupt and to show them good faith and love.

Nice gesture, but, his motivations seem to be a bit mixed. Instead of a gesture of charity, he seems to be treating it as an opportunity to lecture the bakers on how wrong they are.

He said he’s also hoping his gesture will encourage others like the Klein family to “stop using the name of Jesus to explain to the LGBT community why we don’t deserve access to the civil rights afforded to heterosexuals through the legal institution of marriage.”

“I can’t understand why Klein or any other Christians twist the words of Jesus Christ to justify this behavior. To me, it’s a deeply harmful and embarrassing bastardization of our faith.”

Like Jesus said (not) to Mary Magdalene, “I’m gonna pay to bail you out to prove how awesome I am, but you’re still a filthy whore.”

Hat Tip: The Real GayPatriot (who may not entirely agree with my take).

A lot of gay people seem determined to live in a fantasy world of oppression; where everyone hates them and is only barely restrained from committing violence against them. The leadership of the Democrat Party and the gay rights movement fosters and encourages this delusion as it is both politically and monetarily valuable to them.

In this world of fantasy and delusion, Christians are nailing gay people to fenceposts every day while their churches cheer this on. But what do actual Christians … as opposed to deranged gays and their cynical leadership… have to say about violence against gay folk?

The Roman Catholic Church position: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

The United Methodist Church: ““We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends…. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.”

The Episcopal Church: “In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.”

The Southern Baptist Church: While wrestling with the issue of whether homosexuality is compatible with membership in the church, nowhere does the SBC call for gay people to be subjected to violence.

The LDS Church: “The Church has advocated for rights for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”7 In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances aimed at protecting gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment… We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another.”

In the real world, no Christian denomination advocates for violence against gay people. Not even the Westboro Baptist Street Theatre Troupe advocates violence against gay people.

On the other side.

(more…)

Unlike some of the people who comment here, Andrew Klavan finds the heavy-handed fascism of the gay left somewhat distasteful.

I think Homofascism — this current movement to regulate and restrict opinions and outlooks toward homosexuality — indeed, toward anything — should be crushed. Lawsuits against photographers who won’t shoot gay weddings. Television show cancellations because the hosts oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business threatened. Don’t tell me about a company’s right to fire its employees. It has the right, but it isn’t right. It’s unAmerican and it’s despicable.

Gay rights, like all rights, do not in any way supersede the rights of others. A free person may have any opinion about homosexuality he chooses — or about blackness or about Judaism or any other damned thing — and he should be able to speak that opinion out loud and act on that opinion if he does no immediate harm.

I guess Klavan is one of those crazy radical extremists who thinks the Constitution even protects the free speech of those who hurt gay people’s feelers.

Update: The Gay Left cannot be shamed by calling out their behavior as ‘fascist.’ They know they’re being fascists. They’re enjoying it, they’re getting off on it. All bullies get off on the power they wield over the less powerful.

Jeff’s brief post on Friday linking to a piece in The Onion has generated one of the longer discussion threads here in recent months at GayPatriot.  At the risk of mischaracterizing or oversimplifying it, much of the discussion has centered around the policy goals of gay activists of various stripes, as well as whether or not, criticizing or finding fault with some of those goals means one sympathizes with the aims of various anti-gay activists.

I think it is well-known to most regular readers that several of the contributors at GayPatriot, for instance, are either ambivalent or agnostic about the policy questions regarding same-sex marriage.  I, for one, feel that the courts are the wrong place for the argument over so-called “marriage equality” to proceed and that it is better taken up through the legislative process.  Likewise, I don’t feel that one needs to call it marriage if doing so antagonizes a significant portion of the populace who feel that marriage has a traditional meaning which they would rather not modify.  I’ve said before and I’ll say again that what we’re really talking about when we talk about same-sex marriage is a matter of  1). how the state recognizes a contractual relationship between two individuals, and 2). whether or not it has any business granting special privileges to those in a “traditional marriage” which it does not grant to others.  I’d argue that a debate that focused on the desirability of certain policy choices would be much more productive and much more worthwhile than one centered on emotional claims about “rights” and “equality.”  I’d also say that a more dispassionate debate about the implications of policy is more in keeping with both conservative and libertarian principles.

My aim today, though, is not to revisit that debate or to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions on those issues (though I’m still planning to do so in a future post), but to bring up some of the questions raised by the fact that today New Jersey became the second state (after California) to ban “conversion therapy” for gay youths.  My personal view on the issue is that “conversion therapy” doesn’t work in most cases and, to the extent that it is practiced, it should really only be viewed as an option for adults who choose to willingly commit to it.  In other words, New Jersey’s ban is in accord with my personal view on the matter, and yet, for philosophical reasons, I’m still bothered by some aspects of the legislation.

Neo-neocon expresses reservations similar to mine when she writes:

It is no use pretending that therapy—and the licensing of therapists by the state—is not at least partly a political endeavor subject to political fashion rather than a science. Nor should therapists be completely unrestricted. For example, therapists are already prohibited from sexual contact with patients—even willing patients, even adult patients—because it is considered inherently exploitative. But the most harmful practices that could be used by conversion therapists (for example, electric shock) could be banned without banning the entire enterprise. And as the articles point out, mainstream therapy organizations have already condemned conversion therapy and do not advocate it.

But apparently none of that would be enough for the advocates of this bill; the therapy itself must be defined by the government as inherently and unfailingly abusive (what’s next, taking children away from parents who don’t applaud and celebrate their gayness?) As the nanny state grows, so will these essentially political moves by the government. This bill opens the door for a host of governmental abuses in which the state dictates the enforcement of politically correct thought through the mechanism of so-called therapy, and therapists become the instruments by which the public is indoctrinated in what is currently politically acceptable and what is verboten.

Chilling, indeed.

At the risk of invoking the “slippery-slope” argument, I can’t see a way around the concerns that Neo-neocon expresses.  I’d have preferred to let the market regulate itself without getting the state involved in this way.  Once the state has weighed in on this question, though, where can we expect it to weigh in next, and will it ever stop trying to regulate the way parents raise their children?  I can’t see that it ever will.

It’s an unfortunate reality that many gay kids grow up in homes that are not especially loving, nurturing or supportive.   The state, though, is none of those things, either, no matter what the expressed intentions of lawmakers might be.  Increasing the reach of the state into individual lives should not be a comfort to any of us.

Given the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there will, in the next three months, be much talk about the fastest-growing religious group in the country.

And although gay activists have all but demonized the church, with HRC for example, saying that you “just gotta love” Tom Hanks for calling Mormon supporters of Prop 8 “Un-American.”  (Although Louis Farrakhan criticized the president for supporting gay marriage, HRC has never questioned his patriotism.)

Mormons may have helped fund the campaign to pass Proposition 8, but my Mormon friends tell me that the church is reconsidering its attitude toward gays, with attitudes changing in wards across the country.  One of those friends recently shared with me this essay by Dr. Donald C. Fletcher, the bishop in a San Francisco ward:

Working as a bishop in the Bay Ward, I have heard firsthand the stories of members who are gay and felt their pain as I work to bring them back into church activity. The emotional pain and isolation of LGBT members rejected by parents, friends and loved ones after coming out is more severe than any other I have yet experienced in my ministering, and it motivates me to continue in the work I am doing.

Read the whole thing.  Fletcher didn’t just share his thoughts with a few select friends, but in the Salt Lake Tribune, the paper with the largest circulation in Utah, the state with the largest concentration of Mormons on the planet — and the state which houses the administrative and leadership offices of the church.  What Rome is to Catholics, Salt Lake City is to Mormons. (more…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There seems to be a pattern among gay activists and their supporters in the legacy media, to define as “hatred” any opposition to their views on homosexuality.  Now, I do not share Kirk Cameron’s view that homosexuality is “unnatural” and believe this view shows an incredible ignorance of the history of human behavior and of artistic and mythological representations of human relationships.

That said, there is a difference between expressing a view colored by a fundamentalist faith and manifesting animus to those who do not live by the strictures of that faith.  In expressing his (very) un-PC views (and, in my mind, narrow) opinion on homosexuality, Cameron has never adopted a hostile (or hateful) attitude toward gay people.

In her interview with the actor, however, the Today show’s Ann Curry asked if his remarks were “hate speech” and wondered if he were “encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people“.  Later, she speculates that his words might make others feel it’s okay to “mistreat gay people”.

The question is not so much why Mr. Cameron holds these views, but why Ms. Curry would compare them to “hate speech.”  Couldn’t she have questioned them using different language, asking instead why he believes homosexuality to be unnatural, possibly rebutting him with evidence of social tolerance for homosexuality in, say, the ancient Near East and classical Greece?

Seems she’s more interested in reducing his views to animus than in actually understanding his opinion–or changing his mind.

Commenting on the interview, John Nolte contends, “Ann Curry and Leftists like her don’t give a damn about gays. If they did, you would see the same amount of hostility directed towards Muslims.“

Religion of Peace Alert! (via @BillyHallowell)

A disturbing trial came to a close this week in London, England, after three men were convicted of distributing pamphlets that called for gays and lesbians to be murdered. The hateful fliers were disturbing at best. One of them, titled, “Death Penalty?,” showed a mannequin that was hanging from a noose and said that gays should be sent to hell.

“The death sentence is the only way this immoral crime can be erased from corrupting society and act as a deterrent for any other ill person who is remotely inclined in this bent way.”

The leaflet continues: “The only dispute amongst the classical authorities was the method employed in carrying out the penal code.”

It goes on to offer burning, being flung from a high point such as a mountain or building, or being stoned to death as suitable methods.

It’s okay, the real threat to gays (according to American gay leftist/progressive types) is Rick Santorum. 

Move along, nothing to see here.  Except the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just over two years ago, the Human Rights Campaign issued a press release, faulting “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” for sending “a private e-mail to its members in Illinois urging them to contact state legislators and voice opposition to civil unions legislation currently under consideration.  Mormons,” HRC informed us

. . . have notably utilized private networks to torpedo pro-LGBT policies in the past, most recently in their home state of Utah, where a package of fair-minded legislation called the Common Ground Initiative was systematically killed in the state legislature. Most notoriously, Mormons funneled millions of dollars into California last year to pass Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that stripped lesbian and gay couples of the right to marry in the state.

This led Board of Director Bruce Bastian to accuse the Church of “fighting an anti-gay crusade throughout the nation, targeting any form of equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.”  This past week, the Democratic Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates a bill recognizing same-sex marriages in his state because support had melted away:

One of its co-sponsors, Delegate Tiffany T. Alston, a freshman Democrat from Prince George’s County, had withdrawn her support, apparently bowing to pressure from her constituency, which contains a powerful religious community.

Two national groups that oppose same-sex marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, both highlighted African-American and religious opponents of the bill as central to its defeat.

“Particular thanks must go to the African-American pastors, church members and delegates who spoke out against the attempted hijacking of the concept of ‘civil rights,’ ” the Family Research Council said in a statement.

Disappointed “in the outcome,” Del. Doyle Niemann of Prince George’s County offered a similar assessment, “In my area, the power of the black churches was a big part of the problem. Those churches just haven’t come around on this.”  In its statement on the developments in the Maryland marriage debate, HRC did not mention those churches.

Wonder why HRC chooses to single out Mormons with such attacks.

Remember, the American Left wants you to believe the GZM is good, nothing to worry about, and Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

The new imam at the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center believes people who are gay were probably abused as children and that people who leave Islam and preach a new religion should be jailed.

Abdallah Adhami’s remarks on homosexuals, religious freedom and other topics have brought renewed criticism of the proposed community center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, which purports to be an inclusive organization.

Adhami, in a lecture on the Web site of his nonprofit, Sakeenah, says being gay is a “painful trial” caused by past trauma.

“An enormously overwhelming percentage of people struggle with homosexual feeling because of some form of violent emotional or sexual abuse at some point in their life,” he says. “A small, tiny percentage of people are born with a natural inclination that they cannot explain. You find this in the animal kingdom at some level as well.”

Charming.  The Gay Left would be taking to the streets if this Imam’s last name was “Palin”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I cannot go any longer without posting on Greg Gutfeld’s inspired idea.  This has been a HOT topic on Twitter this week among the conservative set.  Liberals are cricketly-silent (*chirp, chirp*) about this idea of full tolerance.  Greg was on Glenn Beck last night to fully discuss his business proposal.

“If New York is to accept the mosque, the mosque has to accept the gay bar.” – Greg Gutfeld

For what it’s worth… here were some of my ideas on Twitter Monday night for names of the gay bar next to the 9/11 Mosque:

• Charlie Crist’s Chocolate Factory
• Ali’s Aqua Queer Bar (say it fast!)
• The Noose and Stone
• Af-MAN-istan’s
• Fatwa Follies (a piano bar)
• Shock & Raw
• Mecca-lecka Hi Mecca Heiney Hoes

NorthDallasThirty had one I enjoyed: Crotch Bomber. 

And my favorite that I cannot take credit for thinking of:  Sodom Hussein

My great Twitter comrade-in-arms, Kurt Schlichter, has some more great names!

-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)

Let us hope that we are not the only gay people to denounce police in Wokington, Cumbria (in the UK) for arresting Dale McAlpine, a Christian street preacher who was “reciting a number of ‘sins’ referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships“:

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.

Now, we don’t agree with what Mr. McAlpine said, but we certainly support his right to say it.  He should not have been arrested.  If people were offended by his words, then they should have challenged him, mounting their own stepladders (as Mr. McAlpine) had done and taking issue with his arguments point by point.  Indeed, one woman did just that, only to find herself approached by a “homosexual police community support officer (PCSO)”.

After this PCSO spoke with this woman who had engaged the preacher “in a debate about his faith”, he confronted McAlpine who

. . . claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

This PCSO sounds like a real busybody while the woman sounds like she pretty much knew how responsible people deal with disagreement in a free society.  They engage in debate.  If this PCSO is going to lock up someone offering an alternative point of view, he must suffer from a severe case of inecurity.  Where else have we see such behavior, locking up our intellectual adversaries?

Authorities should drop the charges, fire the PCSO and ask him to attend tolerance training sessions while we should all follow the example of that woman who engaged the street preacher in debates about faith.  (Though she would have been wise not to inform this PCSO about her conversation.)

When I saw that headline on Memeorandum, naturally my curiosity was piqued as I was delighted to see this Catholic organization acknowledging what the Greeks had figured out at least since Plato’s time — and other cultures certainly acknowledged well before that.

In this short release, Catholic League president Bill Donohue merely takes issue with the New York Times for calling a twenty-year sexual relationship between a young man and a priest abusive.  The Old Gray Lady detailed a gay romance ” between Chilean priest Fr. Fernando Karadima, now 79, and Dr. James Hamilton, now 44.”  Donahue elaborates:

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn’t resist going back for more.

So what about the priest? He is a disgrace. Throw the book at him for all I care. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that Dr. Hamilton is a victim. The real news story here is not another case of homosexual molestation, it’s the political motivation of the New York Times.

I gotta agree with the general thrust of his argument. Hamilton is not a victim, not if he, willingly, over a period of two decades, returned to the priest for continued intimate contact.

All that said, what the priest did when Hamilton was 17 was clearly wrong.  But, Hamilton is no saint.  That he would carry on even after getting married suggested a man clueless as to the meaning of his vows.  And that applies to the priest as well (as per the meaning of his vows.)

But, to call Hamilton a victim after he reached the age of maturity, would be to suggest that any man who engages in a relationship illicit or licit for that matter with another man is by dint of participating in said relationship incapable of exercising sound judgment.

The Catholic Church speaking up forcefully about its teachings on same-sex marriage is clearly protected under the First Amendment, a right I strongly support even though I just as strongly disagree with their view. However, how is their collecting money during Mass for a political campaign even legal? The tax exempt status churches and other organizations enjoy is not a right, but instead is a privilege we as a society extend for valid reasons. This privilege is one I personally see as a bulwark against government intrusion into freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Yet I do not see such direct intereference in the political process by such tax exempt churches and organizations as being part of the bargain. Certainly this isn’t unique as the Catholic Church isn’t the only such organization to take such bold steps, one can undoubtedly find many examples on all sides of the political spectrum over the years. This leads me to question though whether tax exemption in modern times has become nothing more than a subsidy of sorts which religious and secular organizations exploit in order to further their own agendas, whether liberal or conservative, something that groups not having such a luxury are at a disadvantage in countering. Perhaps it’s time to re-examine our laws concerning tax exemption, but I must admit to concerns about even such a move as this because given the partisan use this “re-examination” could be put to the reason for even having this privilege could be put into jeopardy.

I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this…

– John (Average Gay Joe)

In the 1990s, when I was President of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia, I used to appear regularly at Republican events across the region (and in the District of Columbia).  While I would identify our group as an organization of gay Republicans and would occasionally bring a date, getting one date’s permission in 1998 to introduce him to the then-Lieutenant Governor of Virginia (current father-in-law to W’s daughter) as my boyfriend.

Beyond that, I did little to advertise my sexuality.  I found it best to let them know I was gay and show that I was otherwise just a regular Republican.  I didn’t think it helped promote social acceptance of gay peopl by being “in your face” about it.

This is why I don’t have much truck with those who stage certain stunts into order to make a statement.  On Saturday, in response to two gay men being arrested last month for kissing on property owned by the Church of the Latter Days Saints in downtown Salt Lake City (as well as similar incidents in Texas), gay groups across the nation organized kiss-ins in cities across the nation:

Twenty-two people, many of them strangers to one another, gathered under the scorching sun on Washington’s National Mall to participate in the national smooch. They were gay and straight, couples and singles of all ages, with placards that read “Equal Opportunity Kisser” and “A Kiss is a Not a Crime.”

Do you interpret this as I do? That some of the couples doing the public smooching included individuals who didn’t know one another?  Hardly a public display of spontaneous affection that.

While the AP article dwells (and dwells and dwells) on how the arrests hurts the Mormon church’s image (despite the absence of evidence that the Texas arrests were linked to Mormons), I wonder how such stunts stymie the social advancement of gay people.  People will wonder why we need so advertise our sexuality.  (The media does seem obsessed with maligning Mormons.)

It’s one thing to walk hand in hand with the person you love.  Or to in a moment of passion, kiss him, even if in a public place.  But, a staged kiss-in does more harm than good.

If such folks really think such kiss-ins will improve our image, I suggest they try them in front of a mosque or church in the African-American community.

(Oh, and, in the article linked above, the AP reporter leads off with an error by saying Prop 8 “banned gay marriage in California.”  It did no such thing; it merely prevented the state from recognizing it.)