Gay Patriot Header Image

Further thoughts on a conservative approach to gay issues

One reason the headline Log Cabin v. USA so struck me is that in nearly emptying all my e-mail boxes these past few days, I’ve been struck by the absence of independent thinking among gay organizations in coming up with “solutions” to the problems and difficulties gay people face in contemporary society. And it seems that Log Cabin is no different.

Instead of considering how conservative ideas could benefit gay individuals, they have (all too often) simply deferred to the agenda of the various left-leaning national gay organizations on gay issues as if all gay people must back them because, well, these are the gay issues. And in almost every case (save for legislative repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT)), they back policies which either expand the size of the federal government (and, in some cases, state governments as well) and increase its scope. Or both.

Many of the leaders of Log Cabin have, like all too many Republicans, alas, not realized how much the world changed with the inauguration of Ronald Wilson Reagan now nearly thirty years ago. When he spoke these words, he indicated a new approach to addressing our nation’s problems (an approach which neither his vice president nor that future president’s son fully understood):

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

In fashioning a conservative approach to gay issues, gay Republicans should ponder those words. Do we really need more laws to address the issue at hand?  Or, would free-market reforms benefit gay people?

We first saw Log Cabin consider this approach at its national “convention” in 2005 when Chris Barron, then the Political Director of the organization, promoted then-President Bush’s proposed Social Security reforms, noting how they would particularly benefit gay people.  But, with Chris moving to GOProud, his new organization, in many ways, represents the Reagan “revolution” while his old one, in many ways, represents the old Republican guard. (more…)

Will CBS Add any Gay Conservative Characters?

In response to pressure from GLAAD, CBS plans on adding some gay characters to its “scripted programs“.  Now, I have no objection to this inclusion, indeed, think it’s a good thing, but wonder if the gay characters they introduce will adhere to the stereotypes of gay people as defined by the various gay organizations (you know, activists militating for “equality”) — or will they be as complex and diverse as are real-world gay men a lesbians?

I mean, if they add at least three characters, then one of them (to reflect gay demographics) should be a Republican.  Should they introduce such a character, will he be a caricature (as was the gay Republican in a recent movie) or will he be an interesting and independent thinker, regularly exposing the prejudices of his supposedly broad-minded peers?

And while we’re at it, I’m sure conservatives are also underrepresented on CBS shows.  I’m sure the Tifanny Network is moving ahead with all deliberate speed to right that wrong.

(H/t:  Reader Peter Hughes.)

Was Obama Channeling Robert Byrd on The View?

I am sick to my stomach and furious that our so-called “post-racial” President uttered these words on national TV today:

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: “We are sort of a mongrel people.”

I initially was going to resist posting on this because I really despise racial politics.  But since we are getting some new readership from the Left (and they have no clue about American history), I thought it was important. 

Does President Obama have any idea what he just put out there on the table?  Perhaps the most incendiary language in American history

From the article ‘D. W. Griffith and “The Birth of A Monster‘:  [Reference: Who Is D. W. Griffith?]

D.W. Griffith’s 1915 motion picture The Birth of a Nation — originally titled The Clansman — a film which presented a re-writing of the actual history of post Civil War Reconstruction by the same Confederate traitors aginst whom the war had to be fought. It portrayed African-Americans in the post-Civil War South as depraved, lascivious beasts whose rampant lawlessness and alleged domination of the South — through military force and control of the state legislatures — threatened to destroy “Southern civilization” and “mongrelize the races”. The film asserts that this could only be stopped by the glorified lynchings and reign of terror carried out by the “honorable” new, secret order of the “chivalrous” Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

<…>

In most of the Northern cities where the The Birth of a Nation was scheduled to be shown, political fights exploded, and some small riots did occur in Philadelphia and elsewhere where the film was shown. The NAACP and others attempted to seek either a banning of the film completely, or to force the editing-out of the most egregious racist scenes. For the most part, those attempts were futile. Endless hearings were held before mayors, state legislatures, city councils, and state and city censorship boards across the country. The Illinois legislature voted 111-2 to ban the showing in that state, but eventually lost on judicial appeals filed by the film’s promoters.

Those hearings became platforms for the pro-Griffith lobby to pronounce the alleged virtues of eugenics. In New York City, Griffith’s lawyer Martin W. Littleton told Mayor Mitchell that the film was a “protest against the mongrel mixture of black and white.”

It is disgusting and putrid that a President of the United States bring this kind of filth language into the public discourse when our nation has moved so far past it.  Laura Ingraham is correct, Obama is not “post-racial” — he is the most racial and divisive President we have ever had.  Two top Democrat operatives agreed with that conclusion as well this week.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.

<…>

The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Obama’s use of the expression “mongrel people” on The View is further evidence that this President wants to stab America at its heart and divide our people in a way that no other President has.

I have always questioned Obama’s knowledge and comprehension of the American Experience and the American Character.  Now I truly do not believe he has any clue about either.  This is a dangerous man we have elected.

[RELATED: Mongrel. Sexism. Just Another Healing Day for the POTUS - Liberty Pundits]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Victims of our own imagination?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:36 pm - July 28, 2010.
Filed under: Identity Politics,Individuation,Random Thoughts

Have you ever met someone at a social event or in the course of your professional endeavors, started chatting with that individual, gotten to like (or dislike) him (or her) before learning his name and then upon learning his full name, saying, “Oh, so, you’re so and so!”  You’d heard all about him from someone else.  But, the impression you get on meeting him is the exact opposite of the image you had created of him.

This thought comes to mind (and not for the first time) for a variety of reasons, first, speculating about meeting one of our critics at a non-political event where we talk movies or history or whatever before finding out that we sit on opposite side of the political fence and second, thinking that there must be a movie which addresses this topic.

As I thought about this, I realized, the idea is much bigger than just a question of how we often create images of other people in our minds (based upon what others have said about them — or our own impressions of people in a group to which they belong — or who hold the creed they do).  And then, there are the times, when, we fret over what we wear or what we say, fearing we offended somebody in some way.  It’s not that we offended them, it’s that we fear we offended them.

(Or that if we do this or that thing, you know, like jumping in the pool less than an hour after eating, it will cause this or that adverse result.)

It’s all inside our heads.

There is more to this notion than this and I may to build upon it in a future post, but want to keep this one brief to get you thinking.  Sometimes we do become victims of our imagination, seeing things as far different (and perhaps far worse) than things actually are entirely because of how we imagine them to be.

My Apology to Shirley Sherrod — Withdrawn

Last week, I jumped the gun (as did many others) in taking what was a complex story and boiling it down to an video clip without its proper context.  I apologized to my readers and to Shirley Sherrod.

I hereby withdraw the apology to Mrs. Sherrod. 

As I noted at the time, this was a very complex story and I had a pretty good hunch that Mrs. Sherrod was not the angel she appeared to be.  I am correct.  She is a picture perfect product of the liberal policies that make African-Americans dependent on the Federal Government and foster a victimization mentality.  Mrs. Sherrod claimed she learned something when she helped that white farmer, but what she learned may be worse than the presumed racism from the clip of her at the NAACP meeting in March.

I mean – get a load of this.  This is the conclusion Sherrod makes against Andrew Breitbart:

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FMR. GEORGIA DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, USDA: I don’t think he’s [Andrew Breitbart] interested in seeing anyone get past it, because I think he’d like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again. And that’s why –

ANDERSON COOPER: You think he’s a racist?

SHERROD: — I think he’s so vicious. Yes, I do. And I think that’s why he’s so vicious against a black president.

Are you f–ing kidding me??????  So Shirley is in the camp of — “If You Criticize Obama, You are a Racist”.  Give me a bloody break.

Oh but there’s much more.  Salon’s uber-progressive Editor in Chief calls Shirley’s husband, Charles, a “civil rights hero”.  Um, really?

Charles Sherrod: “We must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections.” (January 2010)

The Sherrod’s are full-blown race-baiting liberals.  Dan Riehl has done all of the research, so you don’t have to.  But here’s the money quote:

Mark Knoller mentioned a potential wrongful termination lawsuit [from Shirley Sherrod] in passing. And now the media and the administration seem intent on making her [Sherrod] disappear. One theory on that I’ve heard is, they don’t want people asking questions about her lawsuit. What I’m wondering is, maybe they don’t want people asking questions about Obama.

He worshiped with Jeremiah Wright for years. He potentially appointed a racist black liberationist Marxist to the USDA. Just how many of them does he have around him, as he sits in the WH waging war on capitalism? And, finally, what might all those college documents of his they won’t let us see tell us about him … especially given this? 

Ultimately, given all this now beginning to come out as a result of Andrew Breitbart’s original work makes him a hero in my book. These are the tough questions the press doesn’t even want to ask. It brings to the front important issues on race and racism, black, or otherwise, the press and the WH don’t wish to confront. But that’s what’s suppose to happen in a genuinely free, open and democratic society.

As things stand, an extremely controversial woman is sitting there with a free ticket for a promotion at the USDA from an incompetent in the WH who created this mess by appointing her, then firing her too quickly for some reason. This isn’t Breitbart’s mess. This is now Obama’s mess to clean up, or justify, as far as I’m concerned. Heckuva job, Barry. Heckuva job. At least we’re starting to get used to it. I believe the word is: incompetent.

Obama really does seem to have some of the strangest friends, just like Joan Walsh, of Sherrod’s white media conspiracy against blacks. Who’d a thunk it?

So I’m through with this story.  The edited video was unfortunate, but the true racist stripes of the NAACP, the Sherrods, and the Obama Administration have certainly come out over a week’s time.  So bravo, Mr. Breitbart.  You hit the target.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

NAACP Release on Tea Party “Racism” Relies on Unsubstantiated Accusations

Over at the Kansas City Star, Derek Donovan posts the entire NAACP press release on its resolution condemning “racism within the tea party”:

The resolution condemns the bigoted elements within the Tea Party and asks for them to be repudiated. The NAACP delegates presented this resolution for debate and passage after a year of vitriolic Tea Party demonstrations during which participants used racial slurs and images. In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were accosted by Tea Party demonstrators and called racial epithets. Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the “N” word and openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was called an ugly anti-gay slur.

(H/t:  Gateway Pundit)

Seems they based their entire resolution on a jaundiced view of the Tea Parties.  By their method of argument, if fringe elements of a large movement use hateful rhetoric, that rhetoric can be used to criticize the movement.

First, what the resolution is asking to be done (not sure who they’re asking given the use of the passive) has already been done.  Tea Party leaders have repudiated the handful of racist slurs at image, heart and seen at a handful of Tea Party (yet described in a plethora of media reports, blog posts and opinion columns).

Second, look at the actual “facts” cited by the organization.  Despite a $100,000 prize for video evidence of such activity, no one has stepped forward to provide the video and claim the money.  As Deroy Murdock explains:

If such comments actually were uttered, the NAACP and its leftist allies would have played them over and over and over and over and over and over and over to embarrass and humiliate Republicans, conservatives and the allegedly racist tea party movement. In fact, no one has stepped forward to collect Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 prize for any documentary proof that these supposed race bombs ever were dropped on their targets.

What Does AG Holder Think Of NAACP’s Tea Party Racism Resolution??

February 18, 2009: Attorney General Eric Holder calls USA a “nation of cowards”

July 13, 2010: NAACP Passes Resolution Condeming “Racism of Tea Parties”

Passed on the fourth day of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual convention in Kansas City, the resolution also urged people to oppose what it said was the tea party’s drive “to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

“We feel it’s very important that we educate our membership about the tea parties,” said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City branch of the NAACP, as the debate on the resolution began. “We are concerned that there is a racist element within the tea parties.”

Mr. Attorney General… who are the cowards now?

RELATED STORY: The Racism of the NAACP – BigGovernment.com

In the short history of the Tea Party there has been one racist incident, one, and it was a Tea Party protester who was the victim. The NAACP has abandoned its mission and become a partisan political organization.

Sadly the NAACP has forgotten the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A roundup of what’s going on around the world (in a week where I’d rather not focus on politics)

In a week when I find it tough to focus on the world of politics, much is happening in that realm.  A decision is expected imminently in the latest Prop 8 trial, this one held in a San Francisco federal court.  Should Judge Vaughn Walker decide that the courts can impose social change, watch for the legal drama to continue until this reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.  Expect further social divisions on gay marriage and further whining from gay activists, with little discussion of the meaning of the institution and why its benefits and responsibilities are good for married couples in general and gay people in particular.

With the Senator who stole Christmas now signed up to vote for the Democrats’ financial overhaul legislation, this 2,000-plus page bill is set for passage, further regulating the banking industry, providing additional paperwork responsibilities on small banks, is all but certain to pass.  This will discourage rather than encourage small banks from making loans to small businesses, the enterprises the most net new jobs, thus further delaying a real economic recovery.

(Take note of the bias in the AP article on Senator Nelson’s switch; they dub the liberal Nebraska Senator a “conservative Democrat“!)

Democratic Senate candidates traveled to Canada for political fundraisers while one poll shows my gal Carly Fiorina surging ahead of Barbara Boxer in the race for the U.S. Senate seat that that 28-year Washington veteran has held since the last days of the George H.W. Bush Administration.

Log Cabin’s suit to overturn Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) gets a hearing in federal court.  This lawsuit causes us to question whether that ostensibly Republican organization understands conservative ideas and constitutional principles.  A conservative organization should be wary of setting precedents that would allow courts to second guess the executive and legislature on matters military.  (They are basically compounding the problem begun by Bill Clinton who, when trying to save his political skin back in 1993 (shortly after Mrs. Boxer first won election to the Senate), allowed the legislature to intervene on a matter the constitution clearly delegated to the president.)

A new poll shows that 6 in 10 Americans Lack Faith in Obama. (more…)

Discrimination Against Straight People At Google?

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 Stands Up Against
Leftist Attacks on Congressman Djou

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)

Accusing conservatives of racism to avoid debating their ideas

While waiting for my brother-in-law and checking my accumulated e-mail, I caught this in James Taranto’s Best of the Web:

But we have argued for years against the pernicious practice of falsely imputing racism to one’s opponents in order to discredit them–a practice so common among liberals that entire academic subspecialties are devoted to it.

That does seem to be the main purpose of imputing racism to the Tea Party protesters.  Unwilling to address the concerns they raise, their critics resort to mean-spirited slurs.

Perhaps when I have a moment, I might try to probe their “need” to call their opponents racist, you know, as some would do in an “academic discipline.”

Identity Politics Tarnishing (once-)Golden State?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:34 am - May 21, 2010.
Filed under: California politics,Identity Politics

Observing that the new “speaker of the State Assembly, John Perez. . . appointed the assembly leader, even though he had been in office for only a year” was off golfing to raise money for special interest groups when the Governor unveiled his budget”, Sonicfrog quips:

Yes, he’s the Speaker of the Assembly, yet he doesn’t even know that May 14th is a specific deadline to submit a budget revision. Walters goes on to expose that this Assembly Speaker is in his own world when it comes to common sense. So, how does California end up selecting such an inexperienced person to occupy the highest seat in its Assembly? It could be his strong ties to labor, but that’s not quite enough.

Well, he is gay, but he does, as Sonic notes, have strong ties to the state’s unions.  Oh, and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa just happens to be his uncle.

Just read the whole thing.  It seems that our state Democratic leaders may play identity politics in electing speakers from various minority groups, but they all have one thing in common:  they toe the Democratic Party line:

Did I forget to mention that our politicians tend to be petty and vindictive if you step out of the party line? Bass kicked fellow Dem, Central Valley Representative Nicole Para to the curb, literally, for refusing to vote yes for a flawed budget that she knew would lead to a bigger budget deficit, and that did nothing to fix the growing water crisis here in the Central Valley. 

It is wonderful the progress we’ve made in including people from various minority groups in our state’s political leadership.  It would be nice if Democrats could also include those offering viewpoints at odds with the powers that be in their party’s establishment.

Does the Gay Left See the Rest of Us As a “Howling Mob”?

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)

The Gay Left’s Four-Letter Word

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.

On Elaine Kagan’s Private Life:
& the Irrelevance of an Individual’s Sexuality to his Ability to Serve

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:08 am - May 12, 2010.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness,Identity Politics,Supreme Court

As per Bruce’s recent post on the allegations of Elaine Kagan’s sexuality, basically the nub of what I have to say is that we have more important things to discuss, especially about this woman’s qualifications, than to question her sexuality as some juvenile left-wing bloggers want to do.

Her sexuality is irrelevant to her ability to serve on the Supreme Court.  And we shouldn’t be making an issue of it.

If she is a lesbian and wishes to keep this matter private, that’s her business.  If she’s not, then we’ve got a lot of people making assumptions about the private life of a middle-aged single woman who may well wonder if by focusing on a career where she has enjoyed considerable success, she compromised her chances to find a husband.  I know many single women of her demographic who would very much like not to be.  And the more people blather on about her supposed private life, the less likely it is that she’ll find a man.

Did people make these assumptions about Sonia Sotomayor, divorced in 1983 and single ever since?

Look, I think it would be a great thing to have a lesbian on the Supreme Court and I was all prepared to go all out to defend my former law professor Pam Karlan’s qualifications if the president had tapped that distinguished law professor.  But, Ms. Karlan self-identifies as a lesbian (though she had a boyfriend when she taught me).  That’s her choice.  And we should respect it.  Ms. Kagan doesn’t talk about her private life.  And we should respect that too.

As per that nominee, let’s consider her qualifications, her record as a jurist, her scholarly writings and leave her private life out of it.

UPDATE:  Her friends say she’s not gay:

“I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.”

Read the whole thing.  Some bloggers have got a lot of ‘splaining to do.

Is The Gay SCOTUS Seat Being Filled?

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.”

[RELATEDAndrew Sullivan’s Confused History of the Politics of The Closet.  Heh.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Cinco de Mayo – I Nearly Forgot

I’m a day behind this week for some reason.  Anyway, I was going to put this post up first thing tomorrow thinking that today is May 4th.  Nope.

So to illustrate how meaningless Cinco de Mayo is to me, I’m going to link to this slasher post about the “made for beer” holiday

If it weren’t for beer companies, most Americans wouldn’t know about Cinco de Mayo, a celebration of – well, I’m just not sure. It originated as a commemoration of the anniversary of a victory on May 5, 1862, by the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. (Wow, if everyone celebrated when they defeated the French military, fighting thousands of miles from home, in a desert… half of Africa would be celebrating Cinco de Mayo.) But in recent years it’s become a celebration of victimhood, partially by those here illegally, at the hands of the evil white people who built up the Welfare, Medicare, and Education systems and wanted to spread goodwill towards those who seek a better life in America.

<…>

So, instead of this being another beer holiday where we loosely celebrate another culture such as St. Patrick’s Day… Cinco de Mayo has become a full-on assault of American culture. Speakers at rallies across the country will proclaim that the rest of us are racists and that obeying the law should be the last to do. I’m not saying that those here illegally should all be rounded up and sent back especially, as Ann Coulter said, “smoking-hot Latin guys who stand around not wearing shirts between workouts.” But at LEAST get some better border protection to mitigate against an even bigger crises.

Nor should we forget the richness that legal Mexican immigrants (and their decendants) have added to American culture. But I will not feel guilty about wanting to protect that American culture… and American laws.

I’ll drink to that!

*ducking*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

British “preacher” arrested for calling homosexual behavior sinful

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.)

Feminists Refuse to Defend Evangelical Who Criticizes Islamic Treatment of Women

Over at Big Government, Danielle Avel is taking feminists to task for their silence in the wake of Evangelical Rev. Franklin Graham’s disinvitation from the National Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon “because of his remarks about Islam which included, ‘When you look at what the religion [Islam] does to women and women alone, it is just horrid’“:

Feminists certainly could have come out in support of Franklin Graham’s truthful remarks and brought attention to some simple facts, like how women who live under Shariah Law are virtual prisoners and are not allowed to leave their home unless accompanied by an appropriate male guardian.  Or perhaps, start a discussion on the fact that over 90% of married women in supposedly “moderate Islamic” countries like Pakistan report being “kicked, slapped, beaten, or sexually abused” for crimes like failing to cook or clean to their husbands’ approval or for giving birth to a girl instead of a boy.  Maybe it would have been a good time to mention that now even here in the United States, fathers, brothers, and sons sometimes feel they have the right to viciously attack and murder their own female relatives in order to preserve their so-called “honor.”  At the very least, it would have been an appropriate moment for some feminist group to denounce the heinous practice of female genital mutilation or the stoning to death of women who are raped.  What about the Islamic tradition of forcing children to “marry” adult men who then take complete control over their little bodies — control enough to rape little girls to death as we saw in Yemen just weeks ago.

Even though feminists generally remain silent about this issue, the treatment of women in Islam can be, as Franklin Graham stated, “horrid.”

Guess the feminist groups fear that if they dare condemn the violence against women in Islamic cultures, they might forfeit their membership in the “Coalition of the Oppressed.”  Seems these feminist groups have a lot in common with European gay groups — and indeed gay groups in the United States.

In identity politics pitch, Obama leaves gays* out

Don’t have much time today to check the gay blogs and websites of gay organizations, but I’m sure they’re all in an uproar today about the president’s pitch to his base in anticipation of 2010 elections.

At Politico, Ben Smith observes:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Ed Morrissey notes that Obama left out a few groups: “Well, at least we know who the DNC doesn’t want around in the midterms by subtraction: older white and Asian men.”  He also left out gay people.

Wonder what Joe Solmonese has to say about this.

*NB: Changed the title because initial title was inaccurate; gays weren’t the only group the Democrat neglected.