Thread: How 25 Years of Gay Activism in Hollywood Has Paid Off

We're Not as Stupid as Barack Obama Thinks
By Ross Kaminsky on 5.15.12 @ 10:39AM

A CBS News/New York Times poll shows that two thirds of Americans believe that President Obama's recent "evolution" on gay marriage was a political stunt while one quarter thinks his change was “mostly because he thinks it is right.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us...tics.html?_r=1

Amusingly, an Obama campaign official claimed that the poll used a "biased sample." Surely she recognizes that this poll was done by two of the most pro-Obama organizations in America. http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-biased/543191

Perhaps what we are witnessing, pace Andrew Sullivan, is America's First Gay Ex-President. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...74V4tdj3IgMHVP




Political bettors also don't think Obama's flip-flop-flip (he was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it) is a winner, with Obama's betting odds (to be elected president) slightly lower than they were prior to his May 9th position change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhaThnPWB0A Still, Obama leads Mitt Romney in current betting by about 20 points, roughly 59 percent to 39 percent. (I've been buying Romney and selling Obama just a few points from these levels.)

Despite the issue not working so far, Democrats are doubling down, with 17 Senate Democrats (actually 16 Democrats plus socialist Bernie Sanders) asking the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to stop refusing green cards to foreign gay "spouses" of Americans.

It is true that Americans are steadily becoming more comfortable with homosexual relationships, and even with gay marriage, but we're not comfortable with radicals shoving their views down our throats, even to the point of the President refusing to defend the duly-passed Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

Voters recognize the tyranny of (so-called) good intentions when we see it, and that's why the Democrats' full-court pander on "gay rights" and gay marriage will not work except among college students and as a short-term fund-raising ploy -- which is probably more than enough for an Obama campaign which has struggled to raise money outside of Hollywood and Manhattan. Of course, this only helps them raise money in Hollywood and Manhattan, but those are very fat arteries for the leeches that are Obama bundlers (of whom a reported one in six is gay) to bite into.

It is also worth noting that the "gay rights" activists are hearing what they want to hear, rather than what Obama is really saying: this president, who never found an issue that he didn't want the federal government to dominate, says that individual states should decide on the permissibility of gay marriage. This following last Tuesday's vote in North Carolina which by a stunning 61 percent to 39 percent margin became the 30th state to ban gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage has never passed a statewide vote of the people in any state in our republic. If "gay rights" are the moral equivalent of civil rights for blacks or voting rights for women, as Obama claims, how can he justify leaving the issue to the states -- something few people (other than true racists) would have said about key 1960s civil rights legislation.

Obama was trying to have it both ways on the issue of gay marriage until Joe Biden pushed him off the fence. He's still trying to have it both ways, but it's not working. Conservatives, and some independents, are being pushed toward Romney while Obama shores up part, but not the African-American part, of his voting base. If his gleeful gay bundlers were paying attention to Obama's actual policy prescription, they would be a lot less happy than Ricky Martin seems to be. http://content.usatoday.com/communit...s#.T7JpAMVNt8E But when you have the "first gay president," facts be damned! How can you not just write a check?

Again, despite all the media frenzy and Hollywood hosannas, in the real world Americans are not fooled by Barack Obama's transparently political ploy.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/15...id-as-barack-o

Seems the problem with Washington is, they don't know whats out in the REAL WORLD, just whats happening, or think is happening in Washington DC and California.

There's a bill that will make it impossible for an employer to terminate a gay person, tranvestite *sp, or any non-biblic term of husband and wife, norm of the 1950s.

Just vote your incumbant out of office.

Obama's Marriage Masquerade
By Joshua Foxworth May 11, 2012

This issue of marriage is not as simple as it seems on the surface. It is not simply about allowing two people to have the same rights with respect to hospital visitation or property rights. Marriage involves the role of the federal government and the states, the classification of rights with the U.S., and the rights of Americans to hold their own viewpoints.

President Obama's views on marriage do not merely affect what he calls two people of the same sex who chose to remain in a committed relationship. His views show a marked change in legal and constitutional theory that has tremendous implications.

Prior to becoming president, Barack Obama repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a "civil right." This goes back to his debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, in which he clearly and repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a civil right, but that property matters and hospital visitation were. After becoming president, Obama compared the struggle for marriage to that of the civil rights struggles of African-Americans. Since Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, the White House website now clearly classifies marriage under the civil rights tab. Thus, marriage was not a civil rights issue before Obama was president, and now it is.

In multiple interviews and debates, Senator Obama asserted that the issue of marriage was one to be decided by the states. He noted that the federal government simply did not have a constitutional role in marriage. However, not long after assuming office, the president endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act. While the White House website asserts that this legislation is intended to prevent the federal government from denying rights to same-sex couples, simply reading the summary of the bill shows that this is not the case. The legislation clearly states that it would repeal the parts of DOMA that allow a state to decide for itself how to define marriage, and force a marriage carried out in one state to be recognized in all states. Thus, marriage was a states' rights issue prior to the Obama presidency, and now it is not.

Finally, there is the issue of faith. In 2004, State Senator Obama clearly and articulately denoted his view that his faith dictated the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. In his interview to endorse gay marriage, the president asserted that his faith dictated that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. Without addressing the problems with this assertion and the questions it raises about the president's knowledge of his faith, consider this: as little as three years ago, the president's faith told him that marriage was between one man and one woman, and now it tells him the opposite.

So within the timespan of three years, President Obama has changed his views on where marriage falls within the realm of rights, changed his views on state and federal jurisdiction on marriage, and changed his religious and moral views to go from defining marriage as one man and one woman to maintaining that it is something else.

Now that the scope of the president's evolving views has been established, the question remains as to whether the president has always supported gay marriage -- or have his views legitimately changed? Neither of those possibilities is good from a political standpoint.

First, if the American people believe that the president lied to them about his views, then the 2012 election is all but over. Consider the president's actions after taking office: he pushed for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; he issued two memorandums, one for establishing the same rights for same-sex couples where one was a federal employee and the other for preventing hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid from preventing visitations to same-sex partners; he supported the Respect for Marriage Act; he spoke often to the LGBT community about "the goal" and his desire to see it reached; and he has now classified the matter as a civil right. Most of these things were done before the president's supposed change of heart, and there seems to be no defining issue or moment by which the president can state he was prompted to have this evolution in his view.

Additionally, the entire roll-out of this new view point is contrived. First, the education secretary admits to supporting gay marriage, and then the vice president lets it be known that he supports it, and finally the president admits that his views have changed. This series of events was not accidental. Arne Duncan was used as a tool to introduce the issue, and he and Vice President Biden were used as softeners to ready the American people for the idea of a pro-gay marriage president. They were buffers to get the American people talking about the issue and an excuse to raise it with the president. By doing this, the president is not questioned as to what prompted the change or when it happened. He can simply point to the people around him and assert that his views have "evolved" just like everyone else's.

If the Republican Party can cement the belief that President Obama lied about his view to get elected and has been pursuing a pro-gay marriage agenda since he came to office, then the idea that he is lying about other facets of his ideology will be an easy sell.

The second option is that the president had a legitimate change of heart. The obvious problem this raises is that if he can change his mind on this issue from both a moral and legal point of view, he can surely change it on other issues. Thus, nothing the president says in his campaign speeches or literature can be believed. However, if you are shocked that the president can change his mind on matters, I have hours of health care debates on CSPAN for you to watch before you go to your "shovel-ready" job that cuts the deficit in half.

No matter which of these theories you believe, the next question to ask is the same. It is also the most important question, and the one that no one is asking. During the 2008 election, Senator Obama stated that it was up to churches to decide what they recognized as marriage. Since assuming office, the Obama administration has been very vocal in its support for the "It Gets Better" program. President Obama and numerous members of his administration have made videos for the program. Recently, the founder of this program gave a hate-filled rant against Christians for their bullying of the LGBT community. So the question that remains is this: "Will the president's views evolve to a point where it is no longer a matter of choice for churches and synagogues to recognize only the marriages they see fit?"

Before you answer that question, remember the new viewpoint expressed by President Obama: marriage is now a civil right, and states should not be able to "deny" marriage rights to a couple. No one can deny a person a civil right, and no state law can take that right away. Thus, no one can deny a same-sex couple their civil right to hold a ceremony in the same place where traditional marriage couples hold their ceremonies.

The implementation of these policies will not be immediate or obvious. Given the president's citation of troops in his statement supporting gay marriage, the likely path to the establishment of national gay marriage will be a military couple married in one state and stationed in another by the military. This situation will be cited as "no fault of their own," and the president will assert that one state cannot deny rights to a couple whose only desire is to serve their country. The next obvious step will be a national definition of marriage to prevent a patchwork of laws in 50 states from causing someone to lose his or her civil rights. Once this is established, the ability to deny someone the same use of a facility as any other couple will be an easy sell.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1xzA6BGEy

What a good looking man... it's easy to overlook the balance of contradictions. A perfect spokesperson for the contently confused middle.



I ALWAYS KNEW IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RIGHTS, BECAUSE YOU CAN PETITION AND ACHIEVE FOR THE SAME RIGHTS AS JUST A SAME SEX UNION WITHOUT GOING AFTER MARRIAGE.

A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...troy-marriage/

Guest Post: My Ever Devolving Stance on Gay Marriage
Posted by Bruce Carroll - @GayPatriot at 5:23 pm - May 1, 2013.

There is a book I recommend any young gay man read entitled Androphilia by Jack Donovan. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. It shattered everything I thought I knew about gay-ness and the gay identity. Donovan explained how gays needed to reject the gay community and reclaim the mantle of masculinity, as androphiles.

I’ve always been very interested in what it means to be a man (as I am one) and have found that as I get older — I get more and more in touch with my masculine side. Donovan has become a very prolific writer for me and has inspired many writings, creative and political, over the past couple of years. As someone who has always beat to my own drum, I find that I toe the line very smoothly between the gay and straight world. I never quite fit in with any one “community” or group of people. I’m an individual, believe in rugged individualism as an American ideal, am very patriotic — and have worked through and accepted many conservative view points. I could talk at length at how masculine I am or am not perceived to be, but I know that deep down, who I am, is unabashedly male.

The short end of the stick was being raised primarily by my mother with an ineffective father, who was taught from a young age to acquiesce to all the women in his life. Being raised and surrounded by, I grew up speaking the language of women. I was rejected by the boys on the playground as I was “too sensitive” and didn’t learn, til much later in life, how to man up and be part of the tribe.

As Donovan did, I found the gay community as some shelter from the storm of a world I thought didn’t understand me. But now, as I edge closer to 30 — I have begun to awaken the warrior within me. Men are violent, we are assertive, we are aggressive — but we are also noble, loyal, passionate and courageous. That is the man I am and aspire to be.

Now all this talk of gay marriage? I’m borrowing from Donovan’s thoughts on it — but I agree with him.


Marriage has historically, religiously and culturally been about men and women. It has historically been about the woman leaving her family, marrying a man, who protects and provides for her — and she in return, takes care of him as well.

The customs and traditions (white wedding dress, walking down the aisle, father giving the daughter away, it being “her special day”) have all revolved around the timeless unity that is man and wife. The union helps continue survival of the species. Of course not all couples get married for that reason today and don’t have to. And many partnerships today shun gender roles completely, but they still call it marriage.

I also could get married if I wanted. To be considered a marriage, as a man, I’d have to take a wife. I don’t want one… so therefore, I can’t get married.

I’m not going to speak for lesbians here, because I’m not one and don’t have any experience being a woman.

As someone who is same sex attracted, I fall in love with and primarily admire other men. Honestly, I love everything about men.

And what goes unsaid, is that there have been time tested rituals, oaths and sacrifices made — as described in Blood Brotherhood (another book, also by Donovan) — of the special relationship men have taken (albeit for the most part non-sexually) with each other. The idea being you lay down your life and are willing to take a bullet for your “blood brother.” In some circles and societies these relationships were more respected and of higher clout than a traditional marriage.

What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why aren’t we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief — etc etc — that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition that’s not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship — yes opposites always attract — but that doesn’t make one of us the “girl.” I am a man. We are men — there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isn’t giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.

Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are – separate from marriages – but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole ‘equality’ argument — is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they can’t have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait — I do not choose to feel desire for men — but I do choose to act on it. And I’m good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. I’m not a victim. I’m not oppressed. I’m not embarrassed. I’m not “proud” because I didn’t pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.

I’m a man who loves other men.

One day, I will meet a dude that I will want to lay down my life for. And him for me.

I’d love to have some sort of ceremony that honors that — perhaps without a minister or someone ordaining it — perhaps just between us. Perhaps no one will else will be around for that — where we will make a sacred, spiritual vow to defend each others honor, protect and care for each other, for the rest of our lives. I don’t need a priest or the state to bless my vow. It is my choice to align my life with another man.

And then we can go down to city hall, file some domestic partnership paperwork and be done with it. Or even get a lawyer to work out some finer details.

I don’t need the state or the government to approve of my life or my choices. All I’d like is to be able to be entitled to the same tax breaks as anyone else slugging it out in a partnership. But marriage? No, that wouldn’t be it was — it would feel weird and inorganic for me. I don’t want to be “married” to a dude — I want to, like Jonathan and David from the Bible, bind my soul to another. It’s for me and him to decide what that means and how it works.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court doesn’t redefine ‘marriage’. And I say this as a gay men who isn’t ashamed of his sexuality. But it’s not all I am and all I want to be. There is so much more to me than that. I’m more a man than I am a ‘gay man.’

In fact, perhaps I will stop identifying as gay altogether.

GP Ed. Note: This is a guest post by GayPatriot reader LJ Regine.
LJ Regine is a blogger, writer and political junkie living in New York City. You can check out more of his work as a contributing writer for Conservatives4Palin.com and his blog Whisky Dreams.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01...-gay-marriage/

comments

2.Your last line is what I find most interesting. I know you’re on Twitter and have a lot of followers, and despite that I know you are conservative, the fact that you identify yourself first and foremost as gay is why I haven’t followed you. Do heterosexuals overwhelmingly declare their sexual preference before anything else? What would be the point of declaring myself as straightsurfcitysocal unless I wanted my sexual preference to be the primary element by which I wanted people to identify me? The point is, it isn’t. And I don’t think it’s yours either.

...

4.I have these relationships with men. I was fortunate enough to be able to serve as a marine, and have brothers who I would lay down my life for and they for me. These are stronger and more profound than the relationships I have with the women in my life. I was married and have children, but I prefer the company of men. I prefer to lay with women. As he says these are behavioral, not definitive traits. Men should behave as men.

...

6.LJ Regine – you piqued my interest so I checked out & saw the author responded to a review and I just had to comment:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1AAVXN...wasThisHelpful

THEN I read your guest post. I didn’t understand why gays wanted to appropriate marriage until it dawned on me – acceptance. I agree with you – be yourself and those worth your time will accept you, and you them. It’s life. Nobody should {or really, should even want} people ordered to “like” you!

Obama says David Axelrod’s is 'mixing up' his position on gay marriage

Axelrod writes in his new book that Obama modified his public position to say he supported civil unions, but not gay marriage.
BY Leslie Larson / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS / Wednesday, February 11, 2015, 10:29 AM

President Obama says his former strategist, David Axelrod, is "mixing up" the President's stance on gay marriage.

Axelrod writes in his new book that Obama modified his public position to say he supported civil unions, but not gay marriage. Axelrod says that was because his political advisers told him supporting gay marriages could hurt him politically.

But Obama says Axelrod doesn't have his facts straight. "I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue," Obama told BuzzFeed in an interview on Tuesday.

"I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there ... Where my evolution took place was not in my attitude toward same-sex couples, it was in understanding the pain and the sense of stigma that was being placed on same-sex couples who are friends of mine, where they’d say, 'You know what, if you’re not calling it marriage, it doesn’t feel like the same thing. Even if you gave me the same rights, the fact that I’m being treated differently or the love that we feel is somehow segmented off, that hurts.'

"It was because of those conversations that I ended up shifting positions, that civil unions, in fact, were not sufficient rather than marriage. But I think the notion that somehow I was always in favor of marriage, per se, isn’t quite accurate," he added.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2110826

No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple
By Dave Jorgenson - 23 hours ago

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/2482...e-gay-wedding/