Peggy Noonan’s latest column reminds me yet again why I call her my Athena. The Greek goddess of war, handicrafts, industry and skill, Athena sprung fully formed–and fully armed–from the head of her father Zeus, king of the gods, whose favorite she was. In some tellings, Athena was born only after Zeus swallowed his pregnant first wife, Metis, goddess of wisdom, thus making his favorite child an incarnation of wisdom.

Peggy Noonan also incarnates a certain wisdom. Like Athena, she is a hawk. A speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, she penned an excellent memoir of her White House days, What I saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan era. The book’s eighth chapter, “Who Was That Masked Man?” as well her her 2001 besteller, When Character was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan, capture the essence of the Gipper.

In her latest column, defending John Bolton, the president’s much (and wrongly) maligned choice for U.N. Ambassador, she notes that Bolton is not the only public figure alleged to have a bad temper. She doesn’t think however that such a bad temper should necessarily disqualify him from service:

Bad temper is a bad thing in a public servant, but it is not the worst thing. Worse is the person who judges all questions as either career-enhancing or career-retarding, who lets the right but tough choice slide if standing for it will make him controversial and therefore a target. Mr. Bolton apparently never does that. Worse is the person who doesn’t really care that the right thing be done, as long he gets his paycheck. That’s not Mr. Bolton either. Worse still is the cynic who is above caring about anything beyond his own concerns. And that isn’t Mr. Bolton either.

Emphasis added. It was that bolded (and italicized) line which reminded me of Peggy’s Athena-qualities.
(more…)

In an e-mail, blog reader Synova linked me to this excellent piece by a military blogger who doesn’t think there’s a good reason to exclude gays from the military:

I think it’s time to stop pretending there are no gay people in the military. Don’t ask, don’t tell is a silly policy that doesn’t give our troops credit for their tolerance. No one gains from this and it gives weasel protestors a meager moral advantage as they oppose military recruiting.

Uncle Jimbo, “Madison’s favorite hawk,” takes issues with Elaine Donnelly’s USA TODAY column favoring the continued exclusion of gays from serving in the military.

Since Uncle Jimbo is a military guy without a gay agenda, his piece carries particular weight. If we’re ever going to get rid of “one of the great injustices and follies of our time,” more military guys like him need to speak out against the ban. When the American people see this as an issue of military effectiveness, they’ll come on board and pressure their legislators to change the law. Jimbo makes a better case than I could ever make on this issue, so just read the WHOLE THING!!

I was delighted to note just a moment ago that Dirty Harry, one of my favorite bloggers (and a conservative), called it a “dumb thing” when Gerald Allen, an Alabama Republican lawmaker, proposed censoring books by gay authors. Dirty Harry links to JunkYardBlog, another conservative blog which also called the proposed censorship “dumb.“

Fortunately, this legislator’s bill failed. JunkYardBlog is right to fault him for proposing such sweeping legislation. But, he goes on to say that this “didn’t happen in a vacuum,” suggesting that Allen is likely responding to “the long train of advocacy dressed up as education that has been going in public schools for most of the past generation.“

I recommend JunkYard’s post, especially for critics of this blog, not because I think he’s right, but because he raises a point that many conservatives–and just social conservatives–have been bringing up time and again. They fear that liberal educators are trying to push an advocacy agenda on schoolchildren. And sometimes with solid evidence.

I’m of two minds on the issue. While I would like children to be exposed to positive portrayals of gay people, I also believe in local control of education which, in many cases, would mean that some schools boards would prevent even high schools from offering such positive portrayals.

JunkYard is right that “reasonable limits on the availability of objectionable material should be expected” in school libraries. The problem here is who gets to define what’s reasonable.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

I have finally figured out how to update the blogroll and want to alert y’all to some great blogs that I’ve now listed. First (and long overdue), I add Somewhere in the Middle. My pal Dirty Harry has recently relocated to Jackson’s Junction where he joins videoblogger extraordinaire (and fellow Gipper fan) Trey Jackson. If it weren’t for “THE ADVOCATE,” I might never have discovered Cathy’s World, a most excellent blog by a bright straight woman. And since we’re on the subject of bright straight women, check out Bridget Johnson’s GOP Vixen. Check ‘em all out and while you’re at it, take a gander at the other blogs we’ve listed.

Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) offers some great thoughts on the religious right and a potential danger facing the GOP. Like me, he doesn’t think “we’re in the grip of a theocracy” and he noted that Andrew Sullivan’s tone of late “has been such that I doubt it’s winning many converts.” Importantly he notes that that gay marriage is “clearly a minority position in this country. . . . You go from being a minority position, to a majority position, by convincing people that you’re right. It’s not clear to me that playing the theocracy card will do that.“

Read the whole thing and follow the links for some thoughtful commentary on the “theocracy” debate.

UPDATE: In a recent column, while Michael Barone finds that Americans are becoming increasingly religious, that doesn’t mean “we’re headed to a theocracy” as “America is too diverse and freedom-loving for that.” Read the whole thing!

When I first heard of the “controversy” ovwe Microsoft’s stand on “gay rights,” I immediately assumed the company, one of the first companies to extend benefits to gay employees was cutting or eliminating these benefits. After all, some gay rights’ activists felt Microsoft “betrayed” them. One gay group even asked Microsoft to return an award it had given the company four years ago. Using such strong language, it seemed activists were concerned that Microsoft was no longer treating its employees fairly.

But, this company had not, as I initially feared, changed any of its internal policies regarding gay employees, it had merely withdrawn its support for “a [Washington] state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” Some activists contend that Microsoft withdrew its support for the bill because of pressure from social conservatives. Ken Hutchinson, “pastor of Antioch Bible Church, who has organized several rallies against gay marriage in Washington State and Washington, D.C., said he had threatened in those meetings [with Microsoft executives] to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products.“

Last week, the bill failed by one vote to clear the state Senate.

Microsoft’s own explanation makes more sense to me (a Microsoft shareholder):

They simply examined their legislative priorities and decided that because they already offer extensive benefits to gay employees and that King County, where Microsoft is located, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with a law as stringent as what the state bill proposed, they were focusing on other legislative matters.

It thus seems natural to me that a corporation would want to narrow its legislative focus to “a shorter list of issues,” to put great emphasis on bills which more directly concern the corporation.
(more…)

When former President Clinton referred to an openly gay Republican political consultant as “self-loathing,” he merely repeated a term used so often by the left to describe gay conservatives that it has become a clich?. Some may use the term “self-hating,” but few who do have any real psychological insight into the gay men and lesbians they are attempting to describe. These name-callers lack the imagination to understand individuals whose political beliefs (at least on the surface) don’t seem to correspond to their sexual orientation.

So often do those on the left brand us gay conservatives “self-loathing” that it seems to be the “default” reaction of liberals to a gay person who does not fit into the liberal view of what a gay person should be. In reality, all they’re doing is fixing a label on something they refuse to understand.

In my life, I have met a number of people who have struck me as “self-loathing.” And a few of them have been gays on the right. One man lived with his boyfriend, yet went out of his way to socialize with social conservatives, some of whom repeatedly bashed gays–even in his presence. This man was, however, one of the few conservative gays who appeared (to me at least) to be self-hating. Others who struck me as self-hating, including many gays, did not share his (or my) basic political philosophy. A number indeed were very liberal (often vocally so) in their politics.
(more…)

BoiFromTroy reported yesterday that the California Assembly Judiciary Committee passed by a party line vote the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act which would ensure “equal treatment under the law by allowing same-sex couples to marry in California while continuing to guarantee religious freedom.“

It seems that the legislature is attempting to overturn the will of the people of the Golden State who just five years ago voted in a state law (Prop. 22) to define marriage as the union of the man and a woman.

Under normal circumstances, I would be delighted that the legislature (rather the courts) is taking up the marriage issue. But, given that referendum five years ago–a referendum passed by over 60% of California voters–I fear our posturing state legislature is playing with fire. And that, in the end, they could make things far worse for gay couples in the Golden State.

Indeed, Boi reported today that opponents of gay marriage are already pushing for a state initiative to amend the state’s constitution to ban gay marriage. The “LA TIMES” reports that Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, believes that if the legislature votes in favor of gay marriage, it “will ignite the majority of Californians . . . [to] override the politicians.“

Even in “blue” California, most citizens, while open to state recognition of gay couples, oppose calling such relationships “marriages.” They said as much in 2000 when they voted for Prop. 22. Because of the liberal initiative laws in the Golden State, the legislature should be very careful in choosing the bills it passes. Should they go against the will of the people, some interest group will organize and put a initiative on the ballot. And sometimes, that initiative will do more than merely undo the unpopular legislation.

Given the California vote in 2000 and given that some polls have, in recent months, shown an increase in opposition to gay marriage, this action by the legislature will likely backfire and we may be far worse off than we were before. I fear that the end result of this legislation will be an amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And that is a result most gay people, including those who do not advocate gay marriage, should wish to avoid.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

In a comment, reader Pat Trick, alerted me to this article in the Hartford Courant which noted that only about 3,000 opponents of the state’s civil union law showed up at a protest of this groundbreaking legislation.

This a pretty pathetic turnout, especially since many of those there were bused in from out of state. Pat Trick also observed a number of cars parked near the rally with out-of-state license plates.

This limited opposition seems to be a sign that a broad consensus of the citizens of the Nutmeg State are comfortable with the actions’ of their state’s legislature. And a sign perhaps that the Connecticut legislation may be a model for other states. It may not be a perfect, but it’s one huge step on the right direction.

In 1989, the year I moved to Washington to look for a political job, I had, after just over a year “out of the closet,” gone back in. In the short period when I initially accepted my homosexuality, I did not meet a single gay person who believed same-sex relationships where possible. It was all about the quick hook-up with no possibility of an enduring connection. I felt more out of place in the gay world than I had in the Republican world which I had left shortly before graduating from college a few years earlier.

In D.C., as I looked for a job in the first Bush White House and in various Republican and conservative organizations, I was petrified that someone might find out I had recently lived openly as a gay man in Paris.

As part of my networking, a former colleague introduced me to a woman a few years my senior then working at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) where I had interned in college. This woman invited me to a party where I met a lanky, energetic man, Greg Stevens. Somehow I knew he was gay. And while I was trying to convince myself that I would one day end up with a woman, I wanted Greg to know about my “secret.” I never said anything to him. I did run into him a couple of times when I was over at HUD, but lost touch when I landed a job downtown.

Over the years, as I heard his name, I wondered how I could reconnect with him. When I did come out, his name came up once at a gathering of gay Republicans, but I can no longer remember in what context. I’m sure I asked about his sexuality, just don’t recall the response I got.

This morning, chills ran down my spine when I read this piece in the New York Times about his death in Carrie Fisher’s Hollywood home. (Hat tip to David Ehrenstein for alerting me to the article). The Times identified him as gay, confirming my sense back in 1989. My first thought was, would Greg still be alive had I, back in 1989, had the guts to approach him with my “secret.”
(more…)

Tuesday night, I went to an LA press club gathering of bloggers at the L.A. Athletic Club. And there I was fortunate to meet many people whom I had only previously known from their words on the screen. I didn’t at first recognize Roger Simon as he wasn’t wearing the hat he sports in his blog photo. A decent fellow, Roger asked about this blog’s founder. The ever charming BoiFromTroy was there as well. Hugh Hewitt was as gracious, friendly and engaging as I imagined him to be.

Hugh was familiar with this blog’s recent controversy and was delighted to learn that the blog is still going strong, saying, “Glad you’re keeping the flag raised.”

I also met blogress Cathy Seipp, whose wise and witty blog I only recently discovered, thanks to the “ADVOCATE.” (Although not a lesbian, she was the one conservative on their must-read list of bloggers.) And I was impressed that the L.A. TIMES Sunday Opinion editor Bob Sipchen showed up at a crowd largely hostile to his paper. Indeed, Patterico, one of the toughest critics of the Times, was a featured speaker at the event.

Giovindini Murty updated me about the Liberty Film Festival; conservative film-lovers should bookmark her site. Impressed by the quality of conversation of the bloggers I met, I discovered some great new blogs, including SoCalPundit, Baldilocks, Luke Ford and Matt Szabo. I met other great people, but did not alas write down all their names. (MEMO to Bloggers–next time print up cards with the name of your blog.)

And I met Mickey Kaus whose blog was the first I linked as a blogger. I liked Mickey. His intensity, in some ways, matched my own; he was eager to engage me in conversation on gay marriage, particularly speculating why many people, including those tolerant and accepting of gay people, oppose gay marriage. We also discussed our shared passion for driving cross country and I impressed upon him the beauty of North Dakota, a state which I drove across last August. So, let me give his blog a plug, even as I note that our styles are quite different, he, more stream of consciousness, I, essayistic.

It was a great event. And it was good to meet the faces behind words which educate, entertain and enlighten me. Hugh talked about how the media marketplace is changing and bloggers are becoming increasingly important as sources of news and commentary, the theme of his book (which I reviewed here). Given the quality of last night’s crowd, that’s a good thing.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: Hugh provides a more complete list of the bloggers at last night’s shindig.

UPDATE #2: Others blogging on the event include Cathy’s World, SoCalPundit, Flapsblog (with pictures), Luke Ford and Mickey Kaus.

UPDATE #3: Patterico offers his thoughts on the shindig here. And while you’re at his site, check out his great coverage of the LA TIMES’ bias.

Once again, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) shows its inability to understand conservatives when, in its release today of the Family Research Council (FRC)’s “Justice Sunday,” Executive Director Matt Foreman writes, “there is no difference between the leaders of America’s anti-gay industry and those leading the anti-filibuster campaign. They are one in the same.”

Foreman’s comments show a tremendous misunderstanding of the American conservative moment, indeed, of today’s of Republican Party. It is not nearly as narrow as he thinks. To be sure, as this Justice Sunday rally showed, most social conservatives, a number of them with strong anti-gay views, are helping lead the anti-filibuster campaign. But, many others leading this campaign, including a number of elected Republicans and representatives of conservative legal organizations, are far from anti-gay. Some are strict constructionists, others libertarian. They merely like most of individuals the president has appointed who, as judges, would apply the law rather than legislate from the bench.

Many other supporters of the anti-filibuster campaign oppose filibustering the president’s judicial nominees because we want to stop Democratic obstructionism in the Senate. At the same time, we are troubled by the rhetoric that Christian conservatives are using in this campaign. Cathy Young calls FRC event a “grotesque religio-political circus.”

I am not the only opponent of the filibuster who is not part of what Foreman calls “American’s anti-gay industry.” In an editorial this morning, “Nuke the Filibuster,” “THE LA TIMES” editorialists also oppose Senate Democrats’ tactics, writing

Practically every big-name liberal senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago but now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of heart is explained by something deeper than the mere difference between being in the majority and being in the minority.

While hardly seeing “eye to eye with the far right on social issues” and while opposing “some of these judicial nominees,” “THE TIMES” urges “Republican leaders to press ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster.” Indeed, the TIMES wants the Senate to go further and “nuke the filibuster for all legislative purposes.”
(more…)

Just One Minute asks: “at some point, the lack of an alternative Democratic agenda had the potential to become mildly embarrassing – sure, they are against Bush’s Social security reform, and his judges, but what are the for?” He does list the Senate Democrats’ nine-point plan which seems long on vague policy goals, but short on specifics. Check it out! Hat tip: Instapundit.

Back in 2002, I had sketched out a joint review of David Brock’s “BLINDED BY THE RIGHT: THE CONSCIENCE OF AN EX-CONSERVATIVE” and Ann Coulter’s “SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT,” two books which I read within a few months of each other. I had met both authors in the early 1990s, ironically our initial introductions were through meetings (albeit at different events) of the same organization, the Federalist Society.

Nearly three years ago, I had determined not to write the review because I feared its publication might cause me to be labeled a conservative, which, more often than not, is the kiss of death for aspiring screenwriters in Hollywood. Now, of course, I realize I would rather be honest about who I am than cover up my political beliefs in order to achieve success in Tinseltown.

Both authors undermined the valid points they were making by engaging in polemics to appeal to partisan audiences. Brock attempted to use his anecdotes of the zeal of certain conservatives to bring down President Clinton as a broadside against all conservatives. Coulter turned a book with a smart and well-researched first chapter on liberal misrepresentations of–and diatribes against–conservatives into her own diatribe against liberals. In his book, Brock used too many liberal clich?s about conservatism (which anyone who has spent fifteen minutes reading intelligent conservative magazines or blogs could easily debunk). Coulter engaged in the same sort of name-calling she appeared to decry in her initial chapter.

Now, Ms. Coulter is complaining that in her photo on the cover of a recent issue of “TIME” magazine, “my feet are the size of the Atlantic Ocean, and my head is the size of a tiny little ant.” For someone who spends so much time mocking those on the left, her whining seems a little petty.
(more…)

When I received my copy of the Advocate this afternoon with my “snail mail,” I naturally ripped it open to read the cover story, “Revenge of the Bloggers.” Alas, that this was largely a story on the “outing” of Jeff Gannon. And while reporter Jen Christensen wrote, “Bloggers–even gay bloggers–are not uniformly anti-Bush,” she only lists one gay blogger (the very Mr. Gannon) who supports the president.

I have already put in a call to the magazine to see why this reporter all but ignored gay conservative blogs. And not just this one. She could also note the Wizbang winner for Best LGBT blog, BoiFromTroy (who bested this blog by a mere 16 votes). Or a number of other good conservative (& libertarian) blogs which appear on our blogroll, including Another Gay Republican, Gay and Right, North Dallas Thirty, Queer Conservative, Rick Sincere’s News and Views and Romeo Mike, to name just a few.

Once again, it seems the “mainstream” gay media is ignoring gay conservative voices.

After an unusual past few days, I expect to resume regular blogging this week and have much to blog about. For some reason, I haven’t had much energy to write lately, but feel the literary juices slowly returning. Even my journal entries were scant and I let e-mail pile up instead of responding to it. But, I did watch a few movies, including the tacky but fun “CLASH OF THE TITANS” (which butchers the Perseus-myth) the touching documentary, “HIDING AND SEEKING” (which I highly recommend) and (for the first time in my life) “BAMBI.” And I watched an NBC NEWS’ DVD on the Gipper.

It may have been the sweet remembrance of the Gipper — and his stirring words (the DVD included three of his speeches (in their entirety) and excerpts of others) that got those juices flowing again — or it may have been my visit to Barnes & Noble where I picked up a copy of Brian Anderson’s “SOUTH PARK CONSERVATIVES.” (I wish that I had not purchased the book there as I learned in linking it that I could have saved a few bucks by buying it online. Alas, that I have already written in the book.)

That book reminded me on an article which kept popping up when I read some of the blogs this weekend, the first being on Jeff Jarvis’ Buzz Machine which I got to via Instapundit (who incidentally agrees with the heart of my post, Connecticut in Context.)

Jarvis links to an excellent piece by George Will on declining newspaper circulation. Jarvis thinks we’re at a “tipping point” in media. He has blogged on this earlier (here and here).

Will notes that while the “young are voracious consumers of media, but not of journalism.” When I first read his piece, I realized I had left (and not for the first time) my “LA Times” at the foot of my stairs outside.
(more…)

A few weeks ago, a blog (which one it was I can’t now remember) linked Jane Galt’s really long post about gay marriage. I started reading it online and thought she raised some valid points, so, being busy, decided to print the whole thing out so I could give it the attention it deserves.

I finally got to it on Wednesday and had hoped to blog on it this week, but, well, Connecticut’s Republican governor signed her state’s civil unions bill–and knew I needed to get to that first.

Anyway, I found Ms. Galt’s post most engaging. I underlined select passages and scribbled notes in the margins. If I wasn’t so lacking in energy today (probably due to lack of sleep from staying up late to blog on the Pentheus and Nutmeg State then waking early the following day to research same-sex initiation rituals in Melanesia).

As I’ve been a bit slow in blogging, I recommend Ms. Galt’s post, quite possibly the best piece which “probably falls,” as its author puts it, “on the side of supporting the anti-gay-marriage forces,” thus, a must read for serious advocates of gay marriage.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Back when I was first struggling with my feelings for men, I wanted to find a friend who, to paraphrase the great George Eliot, could “be all to me.” As I opened up a little to gay classmates in college, some dismissed my notion of an enduring romantic relationship as an “idealized fantasy.” Others called it a “media image.” They told me that sex was great and I should just come out and have fun.

In the 1980s, most gay people (or so it then seemed to me) didn’t talk about relationships. Many activists saw the notion of a monogamous gay couple as a strained imitation of a patriarchal pattern. Gays were going to break free of societal constraints on sexual expression. Everyone seemed to agree with André Gide’s statement: “Families, I hate you.” I couldn’t belong to this world. I stayed “in the closet.”

It wasn’t just the gay culture that which frowned upon couples. Few social (or political) institutions recognized our unions.

And this barely two decades ago.

When we look at Connecticut’s recognition of same-sex civil unions in this context, we see how huge it is. Yes, many municipalities, universities and private employers, including 200 Fortune 500 companies, offer domestic partnership benefits. Yes, many religious denominations celebrate gay unions, with Reform Judaism recognizing gay marriage.

But, until yesterday, no elected state legislature, without having been forced by the courts, passed a bill recognizing same-sex civil unions. When the state’s democratically elected Republican governor (albeit elected Lieutenant Governor, but who assumed her current position in accordance with the state Constitution when her predecessor resigned) signed the legislation, the bill became law. Now, the whole nation is watching.

Alas, that so many gay organizations have focused on getting gay marriage through the courts, even as an overwhelmingly majority of Americans oppose calling same-sex unions marriage. They thus don’t fully recognize the significance of an elected legislature recognizing gay couples. As of this writing, there is nothing on the web-site or HRC or NGLTF to acknowledge what happened yesterday in Connecticut.
(more…)

Today, I inaugurate a new topic in which I will attempt to link my passion for mythology with the real world, today (Wednesday, April 20) showing how a myth helped me better understand my unusual day. In my previous post, I noted that I had not checked the news regularly. For some reason, I couldn’t focus. Only, later, in the day, did I realize that I was learning the lesson that the Theban king, Pentheus, learned just before his demise.

Pentheus, you see, refused to honor Dionysus, the god of, among other things, wine and ecstasy. In the end, as we shall see, the god punished him severely for this dishonor. I had planned today to do, as I have done for the past few days (including the weekend) and read for my classes, then write, either for myself or this blog. I would be very productive and focus on rational endeavors.

And the day began according to plan. I woke early, took my car to the mechanic for its oil change and “checkup,” then walked to a nearby Starbucks to get my morning coffee where I read for my classes and reviewed two print-outs, one Gallup’s analysis of its recent poll on attitudes toward gay marriage, the other, a long post from Jane Galt’s blog on gay marriage. (More on both anon.)

When I learned that the work on my car would take longer than I had anticipated, I walked home, fully intending to work as hard today as I had these past few days. But, back here (at my place), I couldn’t focus. I kept trying to be practical and saying I needed to write, but gave up and ended up being idle. In short, I wasted part of the day.

Finally, just after my mechanic called to say the car was ready, I rushed out to get my car and, for some reason, decided to enjoy my walk. I would challenge myself to see if I could make the light at each crosswalk, no matter how far away I was (when the light turned green). I didn’t care if people thought I looked silly running (in my street clothes). I wanted to make this long walk — on a dull street — fun. I began to feel better.
(more…)

The one day when I don’t check the news regularly comes the biggest positive news for gay men and lesbians in a long time. This afternoon, Connecticut’s Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell “signed into law a bill that will afford same-sex couples in Connecticut many of the rights and privileges of married couples.”

This is huge. This good Republican is the first Governor in U.S. History to sign such a bill — without being forced to by the courts. Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero was quick to praise Governor Rell. On this one at least, LCR and this blog are on the same page.

I will have much to say about this, hopefully as soon as this evening. I cannot underestimate the significance of this move. Let me repeat. This is huge, bigger than many of us realize or many of our leaders acknowledge. I’m glad to see that LCR noted in the sub-head to its press release that this legislation is historic. Their use of that word suggests that LCR understands its significance.

And it’s that significance that I will address anon, but first I must dine with a reader of this blog currently visiting LA.

I expect this blog to do something to help further this good Governor’s reelection.

Way to go, Nutmeg State!!!

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE; As of 7 PM PST (10 PM GayPatriot blog time), I have scoured conservative blogs (as many as I could in the short time I have) and only PoliPundit has taken note of this significant move. And neither HRC or NGLTF has issued a release on the good news from the Nutmeg State.