S

o it’s a mixed message from Donald Trump this morning:  Carrie Prejean can keep her Miss California crown despite speaking her mind on gay marriage … and also despite posing for photos wearing nothing but wee bits of underwear while a teen.

Trump, then, came down on the side of true free speech in realizing that reflecting the views of a majority of Americans – even if they are reprehensible to Hollywood and the radical gay lobby – is not grounds for losing a beauty pageant crown. Let’s hope that was an easy decision for him; it certainly should have been.

The second part of the decision – dealing with the photos – is more problematic.  It would be nice if beauty queens and the girls that for whatever reasons see them as role models could look upon nude and semi-nude modeling as a categorical non-starter, and stripping (to use the word) Prejean of her crown for the photos would have sent that meessage.  But Trump recoginzed that in this liberal era, he could hardly recognize her real First Amendment rights (speech) and deny her phony First Amendment rights (expressing herself by posing without much on).

Tweeter pinkelephantpun passed along this re-tweet today, which pretty much sums up the left’s viewpoint of the matter:

RT @BiasedGirl Tolerant Lib of the Day: RT @ian_roberson: I really hate Miss California, I hope that bitch loses her crown and goes to hell!

Shall we discuss the relative prospects for Hell-going?

2 Comments »

O

ne thing you can’t deny about gay marriage advocates in California: They are relentless.  Even before the California Supreme Court issues its ruling on Prop 8 following hearings two weeks ago the homosexual lobby is at it again:

SACRAMENTO — The sponsors of a second ballot measure seeking to repeal California’s ban on same-sex marriage have been cleared to start collecting signatures.

The secretary of state on Friday gave the group Yes on Equality until August 17 to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures needed to qualify its initiative for the 2010 ballot.

If approved by voters, the group’s proposed constitutional amendment would rescind Proposition 8, which passed last November. The California Supreme Court is expected to rule any time on legal challenges to the voter-approved measure. (LA Times)

You could see this one coming.  The gay marriage movement picked up considerable momentum between the state’s two successful sanctity of marriage initiatives, Prop 22, which passed by 61.4  percent in 2000 and Prop 8, which passed by 52.5 percent in 2008.  But they are taking a risk of voter backlash.  They’ve lost twice, and if the SCOCA rules Prop 8 is constitutional, the momentum very likely could turn toward the sanctity of marriage.

4 Comments »

I

n Salon today, Thomas Rogers, a gay man who came of age in the 1990s, talks of his expectations as a gay: Dancing shirtless in a crowded dance hall, “a disconcerting number” of overly-flashy shirts, and of course, drag queens.

It’s odd to think of such a cultural emergence and one is tempted to feel sorry for Rogers for having such a sorry, sex-driven existence. But actually his coming of age wasn’t all that different from mine. As an 18 year old, I thought a lot about the important thing ahead of me: dances crowded with attractive women, all of whom would leave their blouses on (sigh!). I came to realize that some of my peers would not take to the freedom to dress themselves as well as others, and that there’d always be a guy with his shirt unbuttoned to his navel and a gal dressed like a street-walker.

Rogers gets to the meat gist of his story:

But something funny happened on my way to the gay ghetto: The drag queen disappeared not only from mainstream popular culture, but also, to a large extent, from the gay culture of my generation. Most young gay men I know are far more likely to head to a gay-friendly straight bar than take in a drag show, and while drag queens remain a fixture in many bars and clubs, especially those catering to older gay men, those venues appear to be dwindling.

Nearly all of New York’s mammoth gay dance clubs have shut their doors since the ’80s, and demographics suggest that gay men are increasingly leaving behind gay neighborhoods, like the Castro in San Francisco. Half of Boston’s gay bars closed between 1993 and 2007. New York’s Wigstock and San Francisco’s Trannyshack, the two best-known drag revues in the country, have ended their runs.

Should we lament the passing of the drag queens? Those who love campiness can if they wish, but campy or not, they are symbols of skewed sexuality, promiscuity and corrupted morals, so society will not suffer their demise. But …

The drag queens are disappearing because of the mainstreaming of homosexuality in our culture.  As Rogers says, the demographics show the gays leaving their protected enclaves and moving into the lofts or suburbs of their choice, without fear of how straight society will react. Yet the language of “homophobia” continues, as we saw in California where gays accused people who don’t care if their insurance broker, hairdresser or neighbor is gay were accused of homophobia merely because they stood up for the institution of marriage.

Activist gays who have made their living off of the gay rights movement and their diehard supporters are in the same boat as the false prophets of black victimhood who are confronted with a popularly elected black presidential non-victim.  They see favorable portrayals of gays on television, gays living together comfortably in suburbs and cities, a lack of discrimination in jobs and benefits, no need any more for drag queens, yet they fail to accept their victory and fight for what’s already won.

The headline says “the end of gay activism” with a question mark.  I don’t think it is, even though it appears to be moving toward an end. Gay activists will continue to perceive persecution, try to force their sexuality into our school curricula, and pursue the unholy gay grail of holy matrimony.  But like black victimization activists, they will become more marginalized over time.

Traditionalists have reasons to be uncomfortable with the mainstreaming of gay culture.  We fear moral breakdown, worry about too much sexuality being forced too early on our kids, and abhor judicial activism and the legislating of issues that offend our morality.

Morality means a lot to traditionalists, much more than it does to those who flaunt immorality, and because of the disgusting exhibitionism that goes on with gay pride parades, we fear immorality will spread virus-like into our families. The sooner we can get rid of these worries, the better – and no matter where we are on the morality-meter, we know that repression and legislation won’t make gays go away.

But we traditionalists also have reason to be comfortable with gay mainstreaming.  A gay couple in a committed, long-term relationship is less threatening to us than a couple leather-clad gays having sex in stall next to ours.  A gay doing well in his job even as his bosses are aware of his sexual preferences is less threat than one hiding his sexuality and seething with anger.  If it’s “love the sinner, hate the sin” we profess, then we should be happy that the sinners aren’t suffering.  Persecution harden walls, driving people to activism and anger; acceptance and success bring them to a complacent acceptance of society as it is.

This all started with a couple quick thoughts on Rogers’ story of drag queens, and as you can see it became complex, troubled, even contradictory.  Such is the fate of deep moral issues.  It’s much easier to just float through life without asking tough questions – to hate or accept without much thought.  Thank God that’s not my life; it’s the pondering and probing that makes life worth living.

No Comments yet »

U

.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. curtly rejected a frantic attempt by supporters of Prop. 8 – California’s marriage protection initiative – to keep late donor names separate, saying dismissively:

“The court finds that the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure.” (source)

Interesting finding, with “interesting” being polite for “lame, ridiculous, unintelligible.”  While California law is straightforward, stating that disclosure is required, Prop. 8 supporters made a compelling argument for privacy protection – you know the protection they give women who want to kill their pre-borns -  claiming donors have been ravaged by hateful and threatening e-mails and phone calls, confrontations, and even death threats.

Now the judge could have ruled that the California Political Reform Act requires disclosure of contributors of more than $100 and the Prop 8 donors failed to make a compelling case for not enforcing it, but instead he said the state “is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure.”

On what planet?  Prop 8 supporters aren’t going around in Yes on Prop 8 T-shirts, bating violent straightophobes who want to punch someone out for supporting traditional marriage, so how else will the No on 8 die-hards find victims?

Does England really think putting the names of contributors into the hands of people who have done plenty to prove their capabilities in thuggery and harrassment will have no consequences?  He must be a liberal intellectual, because only a liberal intellectual could be that dense.

10 Comments »

M

ilk, nominated for best picture. Sean Penn, nominated for best actor in Milk. Josh Broslin for best supporting actor in Milk. Milk – also nominated for best original screenplay, best costume design, best director, best editing, best original score.

Hollywood, land of the freaks and home of the gays, bestowed on Milk eight Oscar nominations. The movie about the murder of Harvey Milk, the first politician out of the closet, might have gotten more were it not for the fact that it wasn’t really in the running for best actress or best supporting actress.  I’m sure it’s well written and well acted, but I don’t know because I haven’t seen it yet.  I might still, like I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

But that’s neither here nor there.  I’m not arguing that Milk didn’t deserve recognition; I’m arguing about what wasn’t nominated, not what was.  I’m writing about something else, which the LA Times handily dismissed with this:

Clint Eastwood fans who had been hoping the veteran would get an Oscar nomination for lead actor for “Gran Torino,” which is shaping up to be the 78-year-old icon’s biggest box office hit, were undoubtedly disappointed.

That’s like saying fans of Sean Penn would have been disappointed if Milk had gotten skunked the way Gran Torino did.  Milk’s nominations had little to do with how well Penn acted and everything to do with the passage of Prop 8 and a groundswell of pro-gay rights, anti-straight sentiment in Hollywood.  Hollywood is still seething over the passage of 8 and the disestablishment of gay marriage in California, and is still hateful of anyone who supported it, no matter how mildly, as evidenced by the recent kerfuffle over Rick Warren’s invocation at the Obama nomination – and more significantly, the numerous hate crimes and ubiquitous hate speech that’s come from the No on 8 bunch ever since Nov. 5.

Consequently, like I knew they would, the members of the Academy fell all over themselves (saying “You look ravishing!” as they did) to vote for Milk and its story of a murdered gay San Francisco supervisor and his crazed, straight killer. Every vote for Milk carried with it an artistic appreciation of film, I’m sure, but undeniably, it also carried a political anger that needed venting.

The failure of Gran Torino to win a single nomination is no less about Eastwood than Milk’s best film best screenplay, best score, best supporting actor votes, etc., nominations are about Penn.  I’m hardly a Clint Eastwood fan, although I appreciate his many good works.  I would have been pleased with a nomination of Eastwood for best actor, but that’s not the point; the point is that his film wasn’t nominated for best screenplay.

It wasn’t nominated for that award – or any other awards – because the gay activists and gay sympathizers that are the Academy did not want to honor a character who did, in fact, stand up for the rights of others, but in a ramrod straight, gun-toting, ethnic smear-muttering, flag-waving way. Eastwood’s Walt Kowalski didn’t just stand up for rights – he sacrificially stood up for other people’s rights, people who needed someone to stand up for them.  It wasn’t about him at all, unlike Milk, who stood up as much for his own freedoms as for the freedoms of other gays. Every step Milk took forward benefited Milk. Every step Eastwood took forward alienated him from his entire past; everything but his honor, and honor was, at the core, what Kowalski was made of.

The Gran Torino screenplay deals with issues that are central in today’s America:  immigration, assimilation, multiculturalism, political correctness, bigotry, gang violence, the transformation of established neighborhoods, the aging of the Baby Boomer’s parents.  The Milk screenplay, as near as I can tell from what I’ve read, is about gay rights and bigotry. Eight to two in favor of Gran Torino.

The skunking of Gran Torino was Hollywood’s rejection of one of its own because he dared to ignore political correctness and tell a realistic story of America as it is: diverse, suspicious, dangerous, but ultimately righteous, God-fearing, honorable and self-sacrificing for the betterment of others.  Anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan will stir with pride as Kowalski puts his life on the line to confront evil head-on, ready to give his all for a principle worth fighting for.

I doubt very much if they’d be so stirred by Milk.  That’s a compelling argument for most of us, but members of the Academy won’t be influenced much by it.

3 Comments »

T

he amazing ineptness of the media and the left in processing Pastor Rick Warren’s beliefs reveals the deep divides that exist in our society, and the emotional alliance between the media and the radical left and gay activists.  Here’s just a sampling of what’s being written about Warren this morning.

Here’s DeWayne Wickham writing in USA Today: “Recently, Warren — who, like most evangelical leaders, disagrees sharply with Obama on social issues such as … gay rights …”

Richard Cohen, writing in WaPo: “Warren is anti-gay.”

Also in WaPo, E.J. Dionne:  “[Warren] would do well to apologize for comparing gays to pedophiles.”

Here’s Derrick Z. Jackson in the Boston Globe:  “Obama seems compelled to close his eyes to one of the most powerful forms of conservative-driven bigotry left in this country.”

And Katha Politt in the LA Times:  “Warren doesn’t just oppose gay marriage, he’s compared it to incest and pedophilia.”

As I’ve written previously, you can be opposed to gay marriage and for gay rights, you can be opposed to gay marriage and not be anti-gay, and from a Christian worldview, all sin is just plain sin, wether it’s homosexuality, adultry, materialism – or incest or pedophelia.

I’m not going to write about it again.

Instead, I’m going to give you the chance to hear Warren answer these charges in his own words, in video clips embedded in his “Pastor Rick’s News & Views” newsletter that goes to members of Saddleback Church.

In the first video, Rick confronts the “incest and pedophelia” challenge head-on and restates his view on marriage, as defined in the Bible and by virtually every other religion, worldwide for all time.  In this clip, Rick says:

I am opposed to forcing people to act the way I want them to act.  … I have to love everybody regardless of the choices they make.  I am not free to hate anyone.

In the second video, Rick discusses civil rights, free speech and the role of the Christian to be a champion of civility – something that’s been missing from many of his accusers.  It’s pretty straightforward (gayforward?):

No Americans should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period.  Because we are Americans.

Finally, in the third video, Rick discusses how he will respond to the attacks and accusations – by returning love to hate:

How will we respond to these people who attack Saddleback?  We will love and we will love and we will love, and we will pray and we will care.

If you’ve come to this site full of anger over Obama’s designation of Rick Warren as prayer-leader for the inauguration, I invite you to listen to these clips and understand the man and the faith.  You will feel better, I guarantee you.

And I also encourage you even more to read Melissa Ethridge’s piece at HuffPo.  She came to Warren with the same sort of anger:

I hadn’t heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this. When I heard the news, in its neat little sound bite form that we are so accustomed to, it painted the picture for me. This Pastor Rick must surely be one hate spouting, money grabbing, bad hair televangelist like all the others. He probably has his own gay little secret bathroom stall somewhere, you know. One more hater working up his congregation to hate the gays, comparing us to pedophiles and those who commit incest, blah blah blah. Same ‘ole thing.

But after talking with him, came away with a very different view and great hope for a more reconciled, less angry future:

On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife’s struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

That’s what can happen when people move beyond mere posturing.  Will the issues be resolved?  Who really cares. Right now it would just be good if we could just dial down the volume.

1 Comment »

I

understand why some of the more vocal gay opponents of Prop 8 are angry that Barack Obama has extended an invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation at his coronation inauguration – it makes them feel like the two or three percent of the population they are instead of the ten percent they’d like us to believe they are.

Being gay isn’t mainstream, but being Rick Warren is.  Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life has sold well over 30 million copies, making it the best selling Christian book of the modern era, and hundreds if not thousands of churches have had “40 Days of Purpose” sermon series.  His other primary book, The Purpose-Driven Church is a blueprint many pastors have used to make evangelical Protestantism more approachable, and has helped lead the growth of the church in America.

To say that Warren is not mainstream requires redefining mainstream, as does saying opposing gay marriage isn’t mainstream after every state that’s had to consider it has rejected it by strong margins. Still, WaPo saw the merit to give Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a front and center position on today’s op/ed page to rail against Warren.  Solmonese gets it wrong from the start:

It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation.

Warren is not anti-gay; he’s opposed to gay marriage; the two are entirely different matters and Solmonese is dishonest in attempting to paint with this brush.  Unlike Obama at United Trinity, I listened when I was in the pews at Warren’s church, and his teachings on homosexuality are straightforward:  It is a sin, just as adultery and lust are sins, and all have fallen short of the glory of God and therefore need Christ.

While it’s true that Warren would never marry a gay couple at Saddleback, it’s also true that he doesn’t marry straight couples if they’ve been “living in sin” prior to marriage.  But neither does he turn away gays.  I have a very good gay friend who feels very welcome at Saddleback.  Many of the pastors there know he’s gay and have encouraged him to work with other gays to encourage them to live without sexual sin.  That doesn’t mean saying you’re not gay; it means giving over your sins to Christ and striving to live in a way that pleases Him.  My friend by no means is always successful at this – such is the nature of sin – but he is happier by far now than he was when he indulged his sin – such is the nature of Christ.

Solmonese also incorrectly refers to Warren as “a general” in the Yes on 8 campaign, but he didn’t even speak on it until late October.  Still he blames Warren for Prop 8′s success:

One of the biggest reasons for that hurtful outcome was the Rev. Rick Warren, who publicly endorsed Proposition 8 in late October. He told his parishioners and reporters alike that “any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships.” But civil marriage rights for same-sex couples had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Notice that Solmonese has abandoned gay marriage for the much more milquetoast “civil marriage rights?” Notice also that he is certifiably bonkers because he says that marriage has nothing to do with religion; of course it does!  Marriage began as a religious ceremony and still asks God to bless the union.  Typing that it’s not so does not make it not so.

I’m ready to stop fisking Solmonese now, but gay activists would shame me for not dealing with this:

More recently, he even compared same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. He may cloak himself in media-friendly happy talk that plays well on television, but he stands steadfastly against any measure of equality for LGBT Americans.

Same-sex marriage is comparable to incest, pedophilia and polygamy in that it’s a sin.  I would be surprised if Warren also didn’t address adultery in that statement, as well.  Because Warren is most definitely a “hate the sin, love the sinner” kind of preacher, Solmonese’s comment about him standing “steadfastly against any measure of equality” for LGBTs is ludicrous.  Again, gay marriage is a separate issue, and is not about equality; it’s about redefining an institution that is and always has been defined as being exclusively between a man and a woman.

Meanwhile, Geoff Kors, executive director of the mis-named Equality California, is jumping on the misinformation wagon and is turning down his invitation to the inauguration:

Kors … called it “disappointing and hurtful” that a prominent Orange County minister who backed the measure to ban gay marriage has been chosen to speak at the inauguration.

“Accordingly, I have decided to decline the invitation to attend the inauguration as I cannot be part of a celebration that highlights and gives voice to someone who advocated repealing rights from me and millions of other Californians,” Kors said in a statement. (Sac Bee)

Repealing rights?  What a joke.  A few California Supreme Court justices wrongly gave a false right to gays after the people of the state made their position against gay marriage clear, and we’ve set matters straight.  Gays, by appealing the matter to the Supreme Court, took away our rights under California’s constitution to express our vote through referenda.

Meanwhile, Warren is gracious and conciliatory:

“I commend President-elect Barack Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the invocation at his historic inaugural ceremony,

“Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America.” (OC Reg)

Keep praying, Rick.  I don’t think Solmonese, Kors and their supporters have yet achieved your mainstream way of looking at this.

8 Comments »

B

igotry, hatred and intolerance from the gay marriage set has finally hounded Los Angeles Film Festival director Richard Raddon from his job. Raddon, a Mormon, had expressed his first amendment freedom of speech to support Prop 8, California’s gay marriage ban proposition, through activism and financial contributions.

Gay marriage bigots, who demand tolerance from us, showed Raddon no tolerance:

After Raddon’s contribution [of $1,500 to Prop 8] was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from “No on 8″ supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.

Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, “No on 8″ supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted. (LA Times)

Raddon had taken the extraordinary step of actually apologizing for his actions, which are thoroughly legitimate and aligned with the opinion of a strong majority of California’s voting citizens. The apology should come from the gay bigots who are utterly, thoroughly, repulsively intolerant. Someone should bitch-slap every last one of them for the hate crime of the economic lynching of a straight man.

Michelle Malkin links to Variety’s coverage.

7 Comments »

T

here is something very chilling and troubling about this video that shows angry gays jostling an elderly woman, identified by Phyllis Burgess, and destroying her property – a cross, a religious symbol – in a demonstration in Palm Springs protesting the passage of Prop 8:

Here’s a longer clip, where you see just how threatening, intimidating and belligerent the gay rights activists are in denying rights to someone who opposes their view.  I believe the loudmouth in white is the same man who in the clip above is seen stomping violently on the symbol of Christ’s passion.

The early part of the clip shows how dangerous the situation was for the lady and the reporter. Fast forward up to 2:28 and you’ll see very clearly the actual event, when Burgess walks in with another supporter of Prop 8, has the cross ripped from her hands and is jostled roughly.  You will see a Prop 8 proponent hold a No on 8 sign in front of the camera to prevent the recording of whatever the protesters were doing and saying to Ms. Burgess.

I just did a search on AP and Brietbart for Phyllis Burgess and found no hits.  Apparently only Fox News and the desert TV stations see this as newsworthy.  Imagine the press coverage we would be subjected to if a lesbian had been surrounded by Mormons, jostled roughly and her … her what? … her sex toy? … had been pulled from her arms and stomped on!

The Mainly Marginalized Media appear to have decided not to cover the incident, preferring not to criticize gays for riotous, rough behavior and the descration of sacred symbols.

5 Comments »

T

he gross intolerance of those who demand tolerance was on display this week in Sacramento as fallout from the passage of Prop 8 – California’s gay marriage ban – continued, showing gay activists to be … what’s the word they’d use? … heterophobic.

More than 100 people gathered outside the Music Circus today to support Scott Eckern, the theater director who resigned amid controversy over his donation to support the ban on same-sex marriage.

Carrying signs that read “You Made a Circus Out of Freedom” and “A Sad Day for Sacramento Theater,” supporters from throughout the region showed up for the hastily arranged rally.

Many of those gathered say Eckern was treated unfairly.

“This is a witch-hunt,” said Lance Christensen, who says he’s a regular patron of the theater and took off work to show his support for Eckern. “This man has devoted 25 years of his life to theater in Sacramento.”

Eckern resigned from his post as artistic director of the California Musical Theater this morning after harsh reaction to news he donated $1,000 to the campaign to support Proposition 8. (SacBee, emphasis added)

What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites, demanding freedom for themselves while denying it to others. Have brown shirts become standard issue for gays now?

6 Comments »