Mark Segal: The True “Self-Loather”

It’s no surprise to me that activist types and those out there who make being gay 99% of what makes them up as a human beings will avoid having to come up with logical debate techniques other than “you’re stupid” or “you’re a Nazi” to make their point.  After all, these are liberal-gay men we’re talking about here.  But you would think that the ones crying the hardest for gay rights would avoid using “you’re gay” as an insult.

In this hilarious piece of journalism, Mark Segal of Philadelphia Gay News decided to pen a column citing anonymous sources that declare Ann Coulter as being a lesbian.  Okay, fine.  So, we are declaring that Ann Coulter might be gay, do you have a follow-up point?

Apparently not.  Unless of course talking about the use of sex toys can be considered a legitimate political argument that is going to strengthen the path to gay rights in this country. 

This is one of those activist-types that I warn the gay community about.  They begin their articles with a flaming title “Mark My Words”  (probably with a hand on his hip and following up with “gurrrrlfriend”) and immediately begin the attack by labeling their subject (Ann Coulter) as someone who is homophobic. 

He then mentions Coulter’s “support” of Mary Cheney’s baby, only to further it with more insults:

“Ms. Coulter’s support of Mary Cheney’s new baby should not be confused with the idea that she wishes to become just another pregnant lesbian herself. She rejected that path after numerous attempts with the turkey-baster method. And like the vice president’s daughter, she does not believe in the new domestic-partners legislation legalizing lesbian marriages, and therefore does not wish to give birth to a bastard — many of course would say like the child’s mother.”

To begin with, Mary Cheney is an advocate for gay rights, as she has mentioned over and over again.  But see, to insane liberal-activists like Mark Segal, casting your vote while keeping in mind that there are other issues out there to be dealt with such as terrorism is a completely self-loathing and homophobic thing to do.

I only wonder why he didn’t attack Tammy Bruce in this column?  We know that she is gay, supports the President’s war policies, owns a gun, and simutaneously supports progressive rights.  At least he would have had a solid start.

If Ann Coulter is straight, I know that she doesn’t hate me.  If Ann Coulter is gay, I welcome her to the land of gay conservatives that recognize the true damage that idiot activist types like this are doing to our community.

They Really Really Like Me….


After I wrote my “Apologies to atheists” post last week, a nice and very smart fella by the name of Michael Krahn suggested that I look into Digital Journal to publish a few of my postings.

After receiving a lot of personal outside e-mails on my post about gay rights, I decided to combine that with my latest rant about Elizabeth Edwards using gay rights as a new issue (since attempting to roust Ann Coulter failed) to gain more popularity for her husband (who was happy to run along John Kerry 3.5 years ago who vocally opposed gay marriage).

In any case, I got a few reads on Digital Journal and received a mini-award this morning.  Nothing too big, but I am happy to share it with my best blogging-friends.

The article mentioning the weeks best submissions stated the following:

“Also worth noting was another Digital Journal rookie who made a splash with a thoroughly researched piece on the liberal view of gay rights. GayConservative takes home this week’s TopPolitics Award for letting his opinions fly in a post also steeped in facts. He proclaimed some bold statements, such as “All evidence proves that the goal of the Democratic party remains to keep blacks and gays in a sick-victim state to serve at their electoral pleasure.” Thought-provoking conclusion, GayConservative, and no matter where readers stand, they should realize it’s important to read a post that dives deep into an issue that will likely be at the forefront of the presidential debates in 2008.”

To read my touched-up version on Digital Journal, click here

Some of us just aren’t fooled

Since the late 90’s when so-called minorities started to “come out of the closet”, liberals have always had a fascinating way of dealing with them.  Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure it had something to do with the Clinton administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy along with the fact that unlike either Bushes, Bill Clinton failed to appoint an African-American to a position of high power.

As has been well documented by anyone with one eye and half of a brain, the closest African-American to President Clinton was his personal secretary — Betty Curry.  Remember the praise Clinton received for appointing the first female Secretary of State?

How about the praise Johnson got for appointing Justice Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court fresh out of the Civil Rights movement?  Back when white-Democrats didn’t mind avoiding “alleged” litmus tests for justices, Johnson was sure to be the first politically correct Democrat by making sure a judge would sit on the Supreme Court that did his best to defend hardened criminals who raped and murdered, worked feverishly with William Brennan to whole-heartedly support abortion rights and oppose the death penalty which led to dire consequences (oh yeah, he was black, too).  Convicted felons were leashed onto America by the thousands because of previously issued opinions of the Warren Court, where just one year earlier before Marshall came on, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) basically stripped the police of the ability to gain confessions.  At this point, the “avoided” litmus test for judicial insanity was running strong among the most liberal court in the history of this country — thus, Thurgood Marshall was appointed because he passed the “insanity test” even though the majority of the country (aside from the Lennon-lovers and Vietnam draft-dodgers) lived in fear of the kinds of opinions he was issuing.  Johnson boasted of his “historic” decision to appoint an African American by proclaiming that the majority of black-baby-boys would be named “Thurgood” in honor of his choice.  Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin researched medical records in New York and Boston shortly thereafter and sadly, Johnson’s prediction utterly flopped — even the blacks that were just granted Civil Rights a few years earlier didn’t like this new justice!  Nonetheless, this was celebrated and like the case of Bill Clinton with Madeline Albright, Johnson was slurped up one side and down the next by white liberals who love crime and the baby-killing procedure known as abortion.

Upon announcement of Thurgood Marshall’s retirement, you would have thought that President George H.W. Bush would have received rave reviews for replacing him with another African-American — a true Justice — Clarence Thomas.  But unfortunately it took white-liberals all over the country all of five minutes to begin labeling Thomas as “Uncle Tom” or “Uncle Clarence.”  Somehow the love of promoting African-Americans to positions of higher power had managed to fizzle amongst the “Ebony and Ivory” crowd.

Since Clinton was elected in 1992, I have no choice but to flash forward eight entire years to highlight the next set of African American Promotees —

Under President George W. Bush, we had the first black Secretary of State, Colin Powell.  By the time this announcement was made, liberals had already decided that Bush was a war-mongering hater of anyone that was not white, straight, or rich.  Unfortunately, pausing for a moment to document this massive history-making promotion would have directly contradicted their position.  After all, coming up with a new lie would have required energy.

Soon thereafter, Bush also appointed women to the Federal Appeals Court.  One in particular was African-American, the brilliant Janice Rogers-Brown.  This black woman was loved so much by white liberals in Congress that they filibustered her nomination for two years before she finally got to go to work. 

Finally, let’s not forget Condoleezza Rice.  The first-ever black-female Secretary of State.  The woman who learned Beethoven by the age of five, the woman who graduated college at the age of 19 and was already teaching at Stanford by the age of 26.  When liberal cartoonist Jeff Danziger got news of the nomination, he celebrated this moment of equal rights by publishing racist cartoons of Condi:


Bless the hearts of all those elitist and equality-loving liberals!!

When taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence of liberals’ blatant racism, I think it is safe to say that in any sane world outside of San Francisco, most Americans now know which party truly cares about equality for blacks. 

Given the fact that this liberal-trick isn’t working anymore, straight liberals have moved on to claim possession of the gays.  White liberals like Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, and most recently, Elizabeth Edwards run around talking big-talk when it’s time to rally votes.  Considering the latest development that gays also have an incredible sense of style, Elizabeth has even managed to steal-away a fabulous hairdresser for John.

I have to say that these various articles written about me (and other gay conservatives like Kevin-QueerConservative) are beginning to remind me of what white-liberals are saying about the blacks.  The only difference is, these things are being said by members of my own community.

Before I move forward, I would like to point out a few Republican v. Democrats issues regarding the gay community:

  • In 2000, after the Vermont ruling, gay activists got cocky and were ready to start putting the test of gay-marriage to acts of Democracy.  What better place to start than California, right?  After Proposition 22 (to keep marriage between man and woman) passed overwhelmingly in the most liberal state in the land, activists did what they have always done best: silence their opposition and return to the courts for their victories.  Thus, explaining their mad campaign in May of 2000 against Dr. Laura Schlessinger for something she said on December 8, 1998.  (message for the future Matthew Shepards of the world: if you want true justice for crimes committed against you, it’s not a good idea to wait for GLAAD to respond.)  After the passing of Proposition 22, it became apparent that whomever was going to be in the White House shortly thereafter was going to have to respond to the voice of the people on this issue since GLAAD had returned full-force to their old trick of pressuring liberal-judges to handing them their victories on silver platters.  Listen up fellow gays — it did not matter if it was George Bush, it did not matter if it was Al Gore, somehow and someway the President of the United States was asked by the people to respond to this on a national level.  This of course led to the Federal Marriage Amendment.  Boy did Clinton get out just in the knick of time!
  • After the Federal Marriage Amendment was introduced to the country, Americans voted and voted overwhelmingly on mandates against gay marriage.  In California, gays were sold out by the straight liberals in 2000 with Proposition 22.  In Oregon, straight liberals voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage by 73%.  (Bush got 37% of the vote in the general election for Oregon that same year.)
  • Arizona rejected the ban on gay marriage.  (A red state where Bush won 55% of the  vote and a state that overwhelmingly rejects abortion.) 
  • In the 2004 debates, John Kerry vocally admitted opposition to gay marriage.
  • By in large, most of the gays I know make nice-sized incomes and are certainly enjoying the Bush tax-cuts (even if they don’t admit it.)
  • Currently in 2007, Democrats like Sheila Jackson-Lee are trying to convince us that they want irrationally detailed “hate-crimes” bills passed (because they really, really like us) while they simutaneously want criminals pardoned like Tookie Williams by the types of judges described above.  If you were the victim of a beating, would you want your attacker going before that crowd when it was time for justice to be served?

After I posted a brief and somewhat light reply to a liberal-gay man who decided to vocally express his concerns toward myself and other members of the gay-conservative community like Kevin, I did receive e-mails and I did get some comments from one of his readers.  (Frankly I’ve been too busy having fun and irritating the atheists lately.)  In addition to this, other posts have followed on the same websites along with discussion that basically boils down to one age-old question: “how can someone be gay and conservative?” 

Let me be clear by pointing out the fact that I was not “ripping” a new one to anybody.  I have been a Republican since 2000 and have faced far worse adversity within my own community than anything the original article said about me.

The only thing that saddens me is how members of the gay community within this country have allowed themselves to become sheep for the Clintons, for Howard Dean, for John Kerry, and Bill Richardson when these politicians have all factually declared that they have no interest whatsoever in advancing the rights for gays to marry.  This point will be especially re-confirmed all through 2008 as Hillary will be doing her damndest to prove that she does; in fact, believe in God and really does have “religious values.”

So in conclusion, while some other members of our community are out celebrating abortions, hugging trees, and sweating over global-cooling (ooops I forgot, this isn’t the 70’s!) and allow themselves to continue to be snowed by straight liberals, there are a few of us like myself, Steve YuhasJeff GannonKevin, Patrick, and Philip who tend to think outside the realms of Gayville.  All evidence proves that the goal of the Democratic party remains to keep blacks and gays in a sick-victim state to serve at their electoral pleasure.

Noticing this requires objectivity, something that is crucially missing from our community. Until gays wise up, I’m happy to be the “self-loather” and the “Uncle Tom” of the gay community.  Anyone else care to join me?

Maybe Someday I’ll Make Top-Billing

I would have missed this but for Kevin at QueerConservative.  It seems that a gay-liberal has decided to attempt to analyze the land of common sense.

The author of this blatherfest that refused to fail its expected reader by characterizing me as “self-loathing” (gee, why haven’t I heard that before?)  goes on about how liberals like us more and how being gay automatically makes one pro-abortion.  It also points out how loathing it is to expect my community to have a little “pride” by refusing freak-floats on the one day of the year we are supposed to commemorate the victims of the Stonewall era. 

Of course, the author of this would be the first one to whine when the rest of humanity views the gay community as the freaks that play with straight freaks, wear big wigs, and trade “wet stories” about golden showers publicly. 

This fella is also delusioned to believe that it is Democratic politicians that are going to convince the rest of America.  He also lumps the entire community in with other areas of liberal insanity:

One facet of the all-powerful gay stereotype that affects both gay men and lesbians is the idea that we’re all on the liberal side of any political argument. Pro-gay rights, naturally — but also anti-war, pro-choice, and in favor of teaching evolution and comprehensive sex education in schools. This is one area of the gay stereotype that I happen to fit. I’ve often said that I’m happy to be a tree-hugging peacenik

So, I suppose the gay community is a bunch of sheep and nobody has any original thoughts of their own if they happen to be attracted to members of their same-sex?  He wants to teach Darwinism in public schools but also fails to realize that Darwinism considers any species’ mating-practices that do not result in reproduction direct-qualifiers for being exiled from the gene pool.  Does he view this as a compliment?

This is indeed someone who seems to be following Hollywood and is someone who is not thinking outside of the box.  Just because he’s gay, he’s liberal.  Yep, that’s original.

My only request is that next time he gives me top-billing.

Elizabeth Edwards: Sticking to the Issues


Who does Elizabeth Edwards think she is, Evita?

Parading around and giving speeches to the descamisados of San Francisco, Edwards allegedly has made gay-marriage a new concern and is using the death of a Sacramento man for leverage.

Unfortunately for Elizabeth, some of us remember John Kerry admitting his opposition to gay marriage during the 2004 debates while John Edwards simutaneously baited Mary Cheney by using her name against her father.

Fortunately for Elizabeth, half of the gay community does not pay attention to Presidential debates so it’s not all bad news for her husband’s failing campaign.

Mass. Attorney Sues Over Gay Marriage Question

Okay, my ears are always out ready to defend Christians.  But this one just doesn’t make sense to me.

In Boston, Massachusetts – a man is suing for $9.75 million because he failed the state bar exam.  Why did he fail the state bar exam?  Because he refused to answer a question regarding gay-marriage claiming that it was offensive to his morals.

What’s morals got to do with being a lawyer?  Okay, that was a bad joke.  But seriously, it perplexes me why a man would take the bar or choose to practice law in a state that ruled gay marriage to be a constitutional right?  Then he turns around and wants the state to pay him $9.75 million for being stupid?  Huh!?

This doesn’t look too good for Christians – especially since he will be invoking Christianity into the argument.  THIS is going to give liberals the power to denounce Christians and Republicans (the same thing that others claim Ann Coulter does whenever she makes a comment.).

Now, I firmly disagree with Massachusetts’ courts ruling pro-gay marriage from the bench.  As we all know, it’s a people issue.  It’s not a constitutional right and whenever judges try to force something onto the people, they react.

This man in my opinion is an opportunist.  He will be using the suit to also challenge the constitutionality of gay marriage in Massachusetts which is fine with me.  However; he should not be paid $9.75 million after he made the conscience choice to practice law and to take the bar in a state that had already declared gay-marriage to be a right.

It’s okay to challenge laws that we disagree with but as an attorney for any state one has to realize that their job is to recognize the written laws in their states.  By not acknowledging the law in his state, how can the board be required to just give him a license?

That would be like a Doctor refusing to treat a homosexual because he disagrees with their lifestyle.  That would be like me refusing to answer a question on the CPA exam because I might disagree with a regulation set forth by GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) or by SOX (Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.)  Whatever our profession is, we can agree or disagree with certain laws.  But if we are going to practice those professions, we have to follow the procedures.

I don’t buy that this guy (Stephen Dunne); a man who was educated enough to take the bar, didn’t understand this.  This is pure opportunism and a chance to make $9.75 million off the taxpayers of Massachusetts.

This man deserves to be embarrassed and humiliated and this is going to do a lot of harm to good Christians who do not take the law into their own hands.


The one day I miss Kevin’s postings on Queer Conservative, too!  Apparently, him and I take notice of the same headlines.  I picked it up from the Chicago Tribune over coffee yesterday and wrote my rant about it.  See Kevin’s take as well.