Gay Patriot West, with friends like you, same-sex marriage equality doesn't need enemies

by CynthiaYockey on February 1, 2010

As I recall, the last time I punksmacked Daniel Blatt, aka Gay Patriot West, over his ambivalence about gay marriage, — “You no playa da game, you no maka da rules,”I found out he has never been in a longterm committed relationship. (I will publish any correction of this statement he sends me.) I was, for over 20  years, caring for my late life partner until her death on Dec. 7, 2004.

That is why I am OUTRAGED that Daniel never misses an opportunity in the conservative blogosphere to damage the cause of same-sex marriage equality. His latest assault on gays and lesbians who are seeking equality in every aspect of their lives, especially marriage equality, is founded on siding with Joy Behar, of “The View,” who recently opined that homosexuals do not deserve marriage equality because she says we are not monogamous. Or somehow, straight people who marry are monogamous, but gay people, who cannot marry, are not monogamous and therefore never deserve to have marriage equality.

Actually, considering the divorce rate, it looks to me like the straight community should be VERY humble and filled with compassion on the issue of monogamy in marriage.

Also, I want to point out to my fellow gays and lesbians on the Left that THIS is an example of the Left’s betrayal of its promise of support for homosexual equality. They don’t deliver because they do not want to deliver. Who on the Left condemned Behar for extrapolating her attack on the capacity of gays to be faithful into an attack on our quest for equality?

But more importantly, it is time for me to put Daniel on notice that I am going to start matching any further denunciations of the quest of gays and lesbians for equality, especially with regard to marriage, by ridiculing him as a man who has never been able to maintain a long-term, committed relationship. Therefore, I suspect Daniel’s rejection of marriage for ALL homosexuals really has to do with his personal inadequacy. But, if I am wrong, and Daniel has found someone, then I think truth and justice will still be better served if Daniel STOPS writing about gay marriage altogether until he has had one for at least five years.

This is all-out war, Daniel. You do NOT deserve to kill the hopes and dreams and aspirations of worthier people who NEED equality to have the same advantages and supports straight people do to build their lives together and support one another through prosperity and adversity until death parts them.Until YOU’VE been married to the man who is the love of your life for at least FIVE years, you do NOT know enough to write about same-sex marriage equality.


And while I’ve got the strop out, I think you are crazy to let American Elephant dominate your blog. He poisons every comment thread he’s in and is acting like he’s your co-blogger, when he’s really the worst kind of concern troll.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

Liz February 1, 2010 at 4:57 am

It’s not so much the fact that there are *some* promiscuous LGBTs that bothers me. It’s not the fact that *some* LGBTs either can’t or don’t want to be in long term relationships that gets to me. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that.

What I don’t understand is how that’s any different from the behaviour of straight people. *Some* of them are just like that as well, but they still have the option to marry if they so wish. No one expects them to prove their morality – as a group (?!) – before they are allowed to do so.

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 11:43 am


My point exactly! In addition, whenever the religious definition of marriage that it is an institution for the production and rearing of children — which is not ancient, but newly minted to give anti-gay nation-builders something plausible for their opposition to gay equality — NO ONE proposes that heterosexuals should only be allowed to marry if they can and will produce children, OR that their marriages be annulled if they have not produced children before the wife reaches menopause.


SYD February 1, 2010 at 6:29 am


This is such an important story. I hope you never stop telling it. And I hope that Conservatives hear …. that if they would *only* accept that gay and lesbian people deserve the same Constitutional protections as the rest of us do…. their numbers would increase DRAMATICALLY.

I am a case in point. I would likely be a far more “Conservative” voter were it not for this issue.

I don’t think I have ever told you the tale of my own family. My gay son was with his partner for seven years. In a monogamous relationship. They were married by the church in Ohio, but that meant nothing to the law. A year after they moved to Boston they decided to make it legal, and I am thankful for that, every day.

One month after the marriage was legalized…. the unthinkable happened. My son’s husband fell, hit his head, and never woke up. Watching what happened in the week between Jason’s accident and death was like getting a slo-mo education on the importance of marriage rights. End of life decisions. Organ donor status. My son was able to take part in all of it. Because it was happening in Massachusetts, not Ohio. (Being an experienced Ohio nurse made me keenly aware of the difference.)

No one will understand this issue until they hear our stories. In the abstract… it all sounds so simple. Who needs “marriage?” Why not just live together? What difference could it possibly make??

It has been 2 1/2 years since Jason passed. We have been through the life insurance gauntlet ONLY available to my son because of his MA residency and marriage. Jason was the bread winner in the couple. Without that life insurance, my son would not have been able to continue his graduate studies….. What would have happened? I shudder to think.

Your story and my son’s are compelling. We must never stop telling them. Until equal Constitutional protections apply to everyone.

Thanks for speaking up!

.-= SYD´s last blog ..Tweety Is Not Only a Racist, But He Has Come Out of the Racism Closet =-.

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 11:36 am


I send my condolences to you, your son and your family on the loss of Jason.

I do want to clarify for fellow Conservatives that SYD is telling you that there will be more Conservatives, rather than more gays, when Conservatives acknowledge that their reverence for the Constitution and liberty should prevail over the insistence of certain social conservatives that the tenets of their religions should be enacted as laws so that their religion is blended into the government and appropriates its powers. This totalitarian aspect of social conservatism is a paradox in the big tent of conservatism. My approach is to shine a light on this paradox and call people to drop it and move into alignment with their highest ideals. For social conservatives, that means supporting total equality legally for homosexuals — especially since almost everyone has someone in their family who is gay or lesbian. To do otherwise means they could be supporting inequality for their own children!

For homosexuals, this means changing our strategy for obtaining equality from one of throwing tantrums, making threats, maudlin displays or acting out in order to insult others, to one of pointing out that we cherish the ideals of America and will uphold them, and that our aspirations of equality in marriage, adoption and service to our country are noble ones. Plus, by inclination and necessity (due to discrimination), gays and lesbians as a minority have a HUGE number of entrepreneurs, which makes us the natural constituency of fiscal conservatism.



Most people do not know that there is no legal document you can make that allows someone who is not a family member in the hierarchy laid out in state law to make funeral arrangements for you. I almost found this out the hard way when my life partner was dying in 2004 — and a lesbian lawyer had drawn up her will! The only option is for each member of the same-sex couple to make their funeral arrangements in advance, or for one spouse to use a financial power-of-attorney in advance to make the arrangements. This means paying for the funeral in advance, too.

Another observation: when my mother was dying in 2006, my father NEVER had to show proof they were married to make medical decisions for her. In contrast, my late life partner had to have a durable medical power-of-attorney created for her AND I had to have it with me whenever we went out, at every doctor’s appointment and whenever I had to take her to the emergency room. THEN, at the hospital, they would play games with me about honoring the power-of-attorney until I learned I had to have several copies on me, set a half hour deadline for them to decide to honor it, and learn whom to ask for to inform the hospital that her attorney needed to know the contact info for their resident agent so they could be sued. If married couples had to go through that because they didn’t have their marriage licenses on them in all of those circumstances, there would be riots.

Serapia February 1, 2010 at 11:38 am


The instinctual passion with which you still defend the interests of your mate by defending same-sex mate-hood speaks well of you and the institution of same-sex marriage. No one could doubt your fidelity. And such displays of fidelity can only serve to convince the skeptics.

But I wonder, am I missing something? I don’t follow Gay Patriot closely enough to know the overall tenor of Daniel Blatt’s remarks concerning gay marriage, but I did read his post on Behar’s remark and it seemed to me he was criticizing Behar for her remark, and defending fidelity as a necessary goal in marriage, whether straight or gay. So to me (with my admittedly limited knowledge) it sounds like you and he agree.

Also, I just worry when I hear anyone say something like “I am going to start matching any further denunciations… by ridiculing him as a man who has never been able to maintain a long-term, committed relationship”. My experience (as a recently-married, straight, young woman) is that my peers seem all too willing to sacrifice the search for a lifelong mate for the goal of achieving a “long-term relationship” (what I think of as a medium-term relationship — 2-10 years, for example) here and now. Honestly, I don’t think this trend is healthy for them — I think it damages their prospects of happily mating for life. So many of my friends (females especially) have given up hope of mating for life after a string of failed “long-term” relationships.

Some of my peers worried that the fact that neither my husband nor I had been in a “long-term” relationship before was a sign that we “couldn’t commit”, but my husband and I have found the opposite, that the fact that we held out for marriage has made our marital commitment all that much stronger.

Therefore I can’t take lack of previous “long-term relationships” as a sign that a person lacks the heart for marital fidelity.

It may be that Daniel Blatt is still looking for the person he can faithfully and honestly give his heart to for life. It may be that he doesn’t wish to subject a lover to the pain of ending a relationship that has gone on for several years. Perhaps it’s a point of honor with him not to disappoint someone in this way. I don’t know. I can’t know. Maybe even Daniel Blatt doesn’t know the innermost workings of Daniel Blatt’s heart.

Anyhow, I see the lack of long-term loves as a matter for compassion, not ridicule. Ridicule him for other things, not this.

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 12:09 pm


I HAVE been following Daniel on this subject for awhile and I have run out of patience with him — no more benefit of the doubt. I now believe he does not have the ability to marry and THIS is what has embittered him to denounce same-sex marriage equality: THOSE GRAPES ARE SOUR!

The problem is that by clouding the issue of homosexuals actually NOT BEING ABLE TO CHANGE and emphasizing the minority of the gay community who also denounce marriage because they can’t have it, Daniel is actively destroying the lives of homosexuals present and future who NEED the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities and uncounted state and local level rights and responsibilities of marriage to build their lives together and help one another make the most of themselves as individuals — and, for at least 20 percent of our community — care for their children, whether biological or adopted. My argument is that Daniel is committing a form of slow motion murder.


SYD February 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm

“I do want to clarify for fellow Conservatives that SYD is telling you that there will be more Conservatives, rather than more gays, when Conservatives acknowledge that their reverence for the Constitution and liberty should prevail over the insistence of certain social conservatives that the tenets of their religions should be enacted as laws so that their religion is blended into the government and appropriates its powers.”

Thanks for clarifying for me, Cynthia. That is indeed what I meant. I am, myself, on the cusp of declaring myself a Conservative…. but for this issue. (And I should clarify that I am NOT gay. I am the mother of a gay son, and married to the same man for 30 years.)

Your PS. is well taken too. When Luc and Jason were here in Ohio we actually consulted an attorney about these matters. We were told that, no matter what the two men put in writing, the wishes of Jason’s biological family (from which he was estranged) would hold sway.

It is appalling and repulsive to me to imagine what would have happened if Jason would have fallen and died in Ohio. The pain of the loss was bad enough… But to have lost everything else with it…. I do not know how we would have survived. I really do not.
.-= SYD´s last blog ..Tweety Is Not Only a Racist, But He Has Come Out of the Racism Closet =-.

Attmay February 1, 2010 at 5:45 pm


My heart goes out to you and your son. It is one of my life’s goals to meet a man that I can call, both legally and spiritually, my husband. That is why I am fighting for that right, because I truly believe in it.

There are already gays who have already forsaken all others to commit to one another, and there will be more who have not yet found that person but will someday. And there are more still who haven’t even been born yet. But they seem to choose to live a life of private, quiet dignity rather than being strident about their sexuality. And that’s a good thing. But the legal impediments to these family ties must be removed. And young gays need role models to show them the benefits of monogamous marriage.


What are your thoughts on the current case in California and its chances if it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 6:17 pm


I have not been following it as closely as I should, but it is why I have finally had it with Daniel Blatt and declared war. One of the definitions laid out in the trial for homosexuals to meet the legal definition of being a minority, especially one worthy of legal protection and equality, is that homosexuality is a characteristic that one cannot change. Daniel seems blurry on that point — see for yourself in his recent post on the Pashtun gays — and that just finally tore it for me. People’s lives are at stake and all he does is pose. Enough.


Peter February 1, 2010 at 8:58 pm

This old straight guy’s heart goes out to SYD’s son and his Jason, just like it goes out to Cyn and her Margaret. Gay marriage is not my issue, I have no objection to it, merely a few questions about how we can stretch certain institutions , like divorce courts and suchlike to handle it.

I have said, and will continue to say, if you and your Margaret and people like SYD’s son and his Jason were the faces of the LGBT community (communities?) then the whole of the various issues would be memories.

Unfortunately, yours is not that face, the face is that of those knotheads at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco or the excesses at the Gay Pride Marches in NYC. This is unfair, I know. After all the straight community is not defined by those drunks showing their breasts and other body parts at Mardi Gras, but, there it is.

Meanwhile I simply pity people like Daniel, gay, straight or any of those other alphabet terms. Making a committed relationship work is difficult. Making the forsaking all others is hard. Thing is, doing the hard things is the difference between a man and a boy or a woman and a girl. I have never met Daniel, just many like him, unwilling to do that hard work and wondering why he has to settle for fleeting sensations while others work to find lasting love. Damned shame, isn’t it?

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 11:00 pm


I appreciate your comment.

However, I don’t know Daniel in person at all. I do not know if he has settled for a life of casual encounters — I rather think he would prefer true love and monogamy. However, he is well into adulthood and is not in a longterm committed relationship. So he is writing about marriage without having any idea that it is truly a life-or-death matter to have the 1,138 federal rights and uncounted states’ right that attend legal marriages. I don’t believe he’s been barred from being at his spouse’s side during a medical emergency, or had hospital staff claim they “lost” the durable medical power-of-attorney after he saw it inserted in his spouse’s medical chart, or been told by a funeral director he can’t plan and pay for his spouse’s funeral post-mortem. I doubt that he has ever sobbed like a child while crying to God at the top of his lungs with every fiber of his being to spare his spouse. So he has NO IDEA what it is like to be married.

There are emotional and spiritual qualities, and skills, that support a person’s ability to attract and keep a good spouse. And what you know about being married the first year is very different at years five, ten and twenty. Since Daniel has never been married to the man of his dreams, the love of his life, he has no idea whatsoever of what he’s talking about when he writes about gay marriage. And when he writes, as he frequently does, that gays just want to have same-sex marriage equality to have public approval, it is an outrage. Frankly, I consider it a form of murder.


MFS February 1, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Been a lurker here for some months now so it saddens me, that my first comment is to disagree. But this post is simply bizarre.

Having read Blatt’s original post, I never got the impression that he took Behar’s side. So I reread it. Then I reread this. Then I reread his post again. It’s obvious that he simply never said it.

Indeed, you said:

Who on the Left condemned Behar for extrapolating her attack on the capacity of gays to be faithful into an attack on our quest for equality?

This is not only the truth it’s the whole thrust of the GP post you now label as “OUTRAGEOUS.”

No, I get where you are coming from. Some GP posters and many commenter’s raise questions about SSM. You see this as friendly-fire on a position you hold dear. I can respect that.

But, I would hope that you could treat their (conservative!) fears of Burkean backlash, their respect for friends and family of faith, their deep concern about the rearing of children – for what it is: genuine concern for the culture and the nation. The IGF folks seem to understand this and – with all due respect – attempt to grapple with these issues rather than dismiss them as the rantings of someone with “personal inadequacy.”

Cynthia, you strike me as much better than that.

Best wishes,

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 11:17 pm


I am having trouble figuring out what you mean by “IGF.”

Also, I have consistently pointed out to gays and lesbians that there are social conservatives who are resisting equality for homosexuals only because they want to be sure that the things they hold dear will not be trampled — and that these are reasonable requirements that we can meet easily.

However, the people social conservatives destroy with the death of 1138 cuts are the people who are trying the hardest and desire the most to live good and decent lives. That leaves the ones crippled and angered by all the thousands of ways gay and lesbian lives are invalidated, denigrated and damaged by inequality. Conservatives deliberately destroy the access of gays and lesbians to the socializing institutions that help people build good and noble lives — then attack the gays and lesbians who have not been able to overcome this deprivation for not having good and noble lives.


Lori Heine February 1, 2010 at 9:22 pm

I have been commenting over at Gay Patriot for a little while, now, and have gotten into a horrible flame-war with this American Elephant person at least three times on the issue of same-sex marriage. I once pointed out to him that he need never worry about it because no gay man in his right mind would ever marry him.

What’s going on, I think, is that some gay conservatives still have a nagging guilt-complex about being gay. Thus do they feel they must assert themselves as among the “good gays” — who, in their opinion, must hold certain paleoconservative views — as opposed to the “bad gays,” who are evil libruls.

Even though I’m a libertarian, he seems to feel a deep need to cast me in the stereotypical role of typical ultra-leftist loony from the Planet Lesbo. His logic — such as it is — becomes bizarrely convoluted as he willfully misunderstands everything I say. It’s really quite nutty.

I’m glad someone on the gay Right has finally spoken up about this issue. I generally enjoy Gay Patriot, but whenever there’s a post about marriage, the same opinions always predominate. No wonder some people think we’re “self-hating!”
.-= Lori Heine´s last blog ..Onward and Upward to 2010! =-.

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Lori Heine,

American Elephant showed up here not long after I started this blog and tried to pass himself off as a gay man with concerns. I looked at his fake blog, read his comments at Gay Patriot and decided he was a straight, anti-gay concern troll. (Thank you, Hill Buzz, for teaching me how to recognize concern trolls so well!) I told him I thought he was straight and a concern troll and he left, which saved me the trouble of banning him.

Daniel is a fool to let his blog be dominated by concern trolls and anti-gay activists. If there is a more toxic anti-gay blog than Gay Patriot, I’m glad I don’t know about it.


Attmay February 1, 2010 at 9:32 pm


I got sick of his blog for the same reason and many others. He somehow believes that being nice to people who declared out-and-out war on any recognition of gay relationships or anything that acknowledges the normality of homosexuality will make them like him or hold him up as evidence that they are not homophobic. There are reasonable people who can be persuaded as to why gay equality is in the state’s best interest (as history has shown the harm in denying it).

I saw less overt homophobia from heterosexual conservatives.

Stinky February 1, 2010 at 9:58 pm

He added an update to his post saying that he did not agree with Behar.

Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann February 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm

I would like to proclaim that I am the Switzerland of the LGBT community! As I said privately, Cynthia, I have faith that some of Dan’s other gay-male friends will help him evolve on this issue.

In the meantime, there is a strain of thought among youngish gay male conservatives that gay male relationships can often be “all gas and no brakes,” as Al Rantel once put it.

Time and experience will give a lot of these men the insight that lesbians (demographically speaking) tend to acquire earlier in life!
.-= Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann´s last blog ..Eh. =-.

Cynthia Yockey February 1, 2010 at 11:39 pm

Little Miss Attila,

I have no idea what your Al Rantel quote means. However, people, straight or gay, who have decided a life of casual encounters is the life for them, have no place in any discussion about marriage, straight or same-sex. They definitely should not be opining on who deserves to be allowed to marry, or question whether the motives and/or behavior of those who wish to marry are sufficiently pure. Why do I have to explain this?

I declared WAR because I gave Daniel up for lost. I hope to have an improving effect on the bystanders.



I’m still expecting you to wear the low-cut V-neck for the slow dance at CPAC.

Lori Heine February 2, 2010 at 1:04 am

Cynthia, I think your suspicions are right on. When I made my remark about Elephant not having to worry about any gay men wanting to marry him, there was — no response at all.

Now, what genuinely gay man would let an insult like that go? He certainly wasn’t gallant or sportsmanlike about anything else I said about him (and I must admit I got pretty down and dirty), so I doubt that gallantry or good sportsmanship had anything to do with his lack of a response to this.

He’s probably got a wife (straight women are capable of standing for considerably more B.S. than most of the gay men I know) and several very unfortunate children. He doesn’t believe that married women should work outside the home, and I’m sure he rules the house with an iron fist. May God help them all.

I’m very glad to have discovered your blog, and I intend to come back often. Keep up the good work!
.-= Lori Heine´s last blog ..Onward and Upward to 2010! =-.

pacific_waters February 2, 2010 at 2:02 am

I’d like to see the government at all levels get the hell out of the marriage approval business and only sanction civil contract partnerships for EVERYONE!, gay or straight, that guarantee all relationships are regarded equally. They don’t have any business sanctioning what is essentially a religious ritual.

MFS February 2, 2010 at 9:25 am


Wow, first post gets a response. I’m honored.

Sorry about sounding cryptic; we Mainers have been hip-deep in this issue for some months now. I referred to the Independent Gay Forum. (Dale Carpenter, James Kirchick, Walter Olsen, Jon Rauch, If you haven’t checked them out, you really should. Their focus is mainstreaming SSM specifically for right-of-center and independent thinkers. Even if you disagree, it’s some of the smartest stuff out there.

But, I notice that you stole a base by dropping your original Behar accusation. A tactical retreat? No matter. You seem resigned to put a white hood on Blatt. Would it interest you to know that it was his posts that convinced me to support the SSM in our last state vote? That it was his case for gaining legal parity through democratic means rather than court redress that gave me the tools to do battle in Maine? Surely, you have a better sense of what might work in Maryland. But here – where the votes really counted – we needed more Blatts and less vitriol. We can and will do better next time.

At the risk of sounding like a concern troll, I’d like to hear more about the folks who "should not be opining on who deserves to be allowed to marry." Perhaps, it deserves its own post. In this one alone, you have bracketed off folks who sleep around too much, folks who sleep around too little, folks who haven’t found true love, and folks with derilict "spiritual qualities." A small pool left, no?

I kid, but you see where I’m coming from: No True Scotsman arguments sound great, but don’t stiffen the resolve of the wavering. And aren’t they our true audience?

Best wishes,

Cynthia Yockey February 16, 2010 at 6:37 pm


I am glad that Daniel had a positive effect on someone. However, I think the strategy of going state-by-state through the legislatures is a dead end — and intentionally so, from the people who recommend it (for abortion rights, as well). The religions fighting equality for homosexuals are doing so because they are nation-building and want to get people making as many babies for them as possible. Also, state A does not have to recognize a power-of-attorney from state B. The thought of being married in one state, but not in another is just crazy. Plus, the last analysis of DOMA by the General Accountability Office determined that there are 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities attached to marriage. We need marriages that are federally recognized. For example, a federally-recognized marriage is required for a spouse of a member of the diplomatic corps or military to have privileges such as housing with their spouse and inclusion of their property in the move when they must live abroad.

I didn’t use a “No true Scotsman” argument. See my comment citing Aesop’s fables and comparing Daniel to the fox without a brush and the dog in the manger.


Instinct February 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm

I think the real problem, at least in the Prop 8 situation, is the perception (real or imagined) that the whole marriage thing would force churches to perform marriage ceremonies even if they don’t want to for fear of being sued or arrested for discrimination. Yes, there are also the religious fanatics who think it’s a sin, blah.. blah.. screw them. There will always be people who hate on all sides of an issue and nothing will make them happy, even if they win.

What I would like to see nation wide, is the states divorcing themselves from marriage and just issuing civil unions for everyone. This then take the religious opposition out of it because the church can then decide if they want to do it or not without any repercussions from law and follow their own beliefs. To me, it is obvious that the only reason for the marriage license in the first place is for legal reasons. So why does it have to be called a marriage license instead of a civil license? And why does the religious side of it have to come into play for everyone?

I am Christian, and I am married, and I do know that the ceremony we had in the church wasn’t for the state, it was to affirm our commitment before God and our families. The state license was only done so that if something happens we can take care of each other, which is all the gay community wants as well. I don’t think that God really cares what sex the person you love is as long as you truly LOVE them.

The answer is obvious, get the state out of the religious business and issue everyone the same civil license and have an end to this once and for all.
.-= Instinct´s last blog ..And yet another reason NOT to see Avatar =-.

Cynthia Yockey February 16, 2010 at 6:49 pm


Thank you for your comment. I’ll summarize points I’ve made at length in other posts. First, we have our own church to be married in, the Metropolitan Community Church, and do not need anyone else’s. Second, dividing marriage into civil and religious unions will require two union ceremonies, and, if the relationship ends, two divorces. What a mess! Third, there are 1,138 federal rights attached to marriage — we need it to be federal to have full equality. Fourth, if state legislatures have to keep two sets of laws for marriage and civil unions, they will get out of synch in a hurry because there always will be someone wanting to make his bones as a legislator by opposing gay equality. Civil unions seem like a great compromise, but they just won’t work in practice.

However, you are right, if religions really want the state out of their business, then they should renounce having any civil rights attached to the marriages they perform. I wonder why they don’t offer to do that.


Tim February 2, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Oh, Cynthia, how right you are! What a warped and conflicted person who must have every gay and lesbian sign a form swearing to never ever want to have sexual desires for another person for the rest of their adult life before any of us should have the right to marry. Most of our ideas on marriage/gender/gays stem from thousand year old tribal mentalities when few babies even survived and no one lived past age 30. What small minded-ness to ask modern educated adults to conform to all previous, narrow-minded religious views of love and its forms in the past 2,000 years or so before any of us dare to entertain the idea of having equal rights. What self-righteous and religious bigotry to be lecturing us on needing to follow fictional stories of laws on stone tablets in the year 2010 before thinking of having the same rights as our straight counterparts.
I would give up trying to figure out much of his writing other than pointless rambling. 75% of what he posts is easily accessible anywhere else, and whatever commentary he ads is usually useless. Here is a man who graduated from law school, has written screen plays and columns and blogs every day, but boasts of his inability to use a spell check to even give his regurgitations any sort of readability. I tried to get Bruce and others back involved at that site, but it was met with accusations of being a secret spy for European liberals. He has a great track of record of having to retract or clarify points when readers point out his lack of research and obvious errors. He’s done a great job of killing the readership of the site, as evidenced by the fact that his average post doesn’t break 10 comments. And those are usually the same half dozen self-loathing homos jumping to pat him on the back for the latest unoriginal rant.
Everything you say is correct, but take solace in the fact that he’s largely ignored and irrelevant.

Cynthia Yockey February 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm



And thank you!


Steven L. Carr February 4, 2010 at 6:56 am

Hi Cynthia,

Was led to your blog by Instapundit, and I believe I will enjoy following your blogging. Full disclosure, I am not gay, am currently married (for 26 years) and have four children ages 23-15.

I believe I understand your frustration and anger with Gay Patriot West, but it seems to me you have a bias against him expressing his opinion based primarily on two facts: 1. he does not appear to place the same value on a long-term committed relationship you do and 2. he holds an opinion on the issue almost diametrically opposite your own. Is that accurate?

Addressing objection 2 first, whether or not it is convenient, he is certainly 100% within his rights to hold his opinion and to express it freely. I think your opposition to his view is justifiable.

However, it seems to me that you are intertwining objection 1 with objection 2. As I read your responses, you seem to be implying that having a long-term commitment to a monogamous relationship (whether gay or straight) is the ideal for which all should “root for” or to which all should aspire AND if they do not, they should shut up about it.

I do not see how this follows. Can you help me here?

Further, you seem to have said that he is somehow “deficient” for not holding the same view on the value of long-term relationships you do. Why?

Thanks, Steven L. Carr, Cincinnati, OH

Cynthia Yockey February 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm

Steven L. Carr,

The problem is that Daniel regularly attacks gays to curry favor with conservatives. Also, he strikes me as a dog in the manger regarding homosexual marriage equality. This post is my notice that when Daniel attacks gays or undermines the quest for homosexual marriage equality, I will call him on it publicly.

One of the arguments used against homosexual marriage equality is that we would redefine marriage to make it non-monogamous. As if. Heterosexuals do not have to vow to be monogamous when they marry, and they don’t see to do a very good job of it. Whether or not spouses will be monogamous is their business and should not be a factor in whether or not homoesexuals deserve to have full citizenship, including marriage equality.


ThatGayConservative February 4, 2010 at 7:31 pm

“I found out he has never been in a longterm committed relationship.”

That’s a downright dirty, shitty thing to say. I’m guessing you’ve seen my comments, so you know I’m blunt. What difference does it make whether he’s been in a LTR or not? What’s worse, you say “I found out”, but give yourself an out that you really don’t know. And so what if he hasn’t?

I wonder: I’ve been in one for 13 years, but have lived 1,000 away from my partner for the last ten. Do you have a rule in your book on that? Do I, therefore, not have a right to comment on the matter? Do I not meet your absurd, arbitrary 5 year rule?

I’m sorry for the loss of your partner. However, I would have to ask if she would have wanted to be used as a prop to elicit emotional response or to somehow solidify some sort of perverted bonafides.

At any rate, your whole argument is the same as the pathetic “chicken hawk” slur. Using that same argument, one could say that people who aren’t police officers shouldn’t have any say about what they do. Ditto for firefighters, doctors, EMTs, teachers, car dealers whatever. It’s truly idiotic and pathetic.

I’m not familiar with your work, but I sure hope you’re better than that.

Cynthia Yockey February 16, 2010 at 6:15 pm


I will not be approving any more of your comments that have bad language or have this level of stupidity.

The last I heard from Daniel, he was not in a committed relationship. The personal IS the political, especially when it comes to marriage. Daniel is a dog in the manger for gays and lesbians who DO want to marry AND who have the relationship skills to marry and stay married. My perception is that he is like Aesop’s fox who lost his brush who ran around trying to convince all the other foxes they didn’t need tails, either.

Daniel must man up. He has the right to curry favor in the conservative world by attacking and undermining equality for gays. And I have the right to smack him on the snoot until he gets out of the manger.


Bruce (GayPatriot) February 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm


Thanks for your passive-aggressive approach. Very mature.

You have never once emailed me or Dan with your concerns about either the issue itself or the “troll dominance” (your view).

For your readers information, we RARELY delete or edit comments (despite the human filth that leave many of them) because we want everyone to see how ignorant they are.

I am also a First Amendment Fundamentalist. Unless someone is religion-bashing or race-baiting, etc. or continues attacks on an individual for attack’s sake — they will not be censored.
.-= Bruce (GayPatriot)´s last blog ..Will Democratic Congress Kill DADT Repeal? =-.

Cynthia Yockey February 16, 2010 at 6:00 pm

Bruce (GayPatriot),

There was absolutely nothing passive about my approach. It was 100 percent aggressive. If you did not realize this, I will have to ramp up the aggression so you are sure of the distinction.

I will be explaining what having a vision and a narrative and an objective will accomplish. I have them. You don’t, and dress your deficiency up as “First Amendment Fundamentalism.” You are owned and pwned by trolls and proud of it. Well, I’m going another way.

You know what? Stacy McCain and I are at daggers drawn over homosexual marriage equality and have regular blogball matches over it, but we are great friends and there’s no other blogger I talk to more often. This is blogball, sweetie! Take your lumps like a man! Answer back in a post like a man! And then treat it like bidness, the way real professionals do!

Also, why would I e-mail you over this when you have not answered my e-mails in the past? Why would I e-mail you when I disagree with you for any reason? Clearly you are condescending and contemptuous of anyone who disagrees with you. This discussion is going to happen out in the open where it belongs.


Sarahfan February 13, 2010 at 2:41 am

The lefties over at afterEllen are spreading lies about Sarah Palin again. Sarah is being accused of saying “being gay is a sin” I defy any of them to actually prove she said it. Why not post an audio or video of her saying that. They can’t because its just made up shit. I NEVER heard Sarah say anything of the kind. Somehow though they think they have “put Sarah in her place”. No one puts Sarah in her place, she is the one who puts others in their place.

Instinct February 20, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Sorry, late coming back to this post but let me clarify what I was saying (sometimes – like “all the time” I ramble)

I don’t want two sets of laws, not at all. I want equality – real equality – for everyone. One set of laws that are called civil unions that the state would issue as the license. period. All the benefits that come with marriage but divested of the religious inference.

Then, you can take the civil license and, if you so desire, have a ceremony performed in a church that is just that – a ceremony – and your marriage is good to go. The pastor, priest, whoever then signs saying that everything’s good and your off on your way. Or you could just have a judge do it. Whatever. All good. But still the same license.

The state could do this by passing their own laws to replace what they have with a civil union. I have no idea why they don’t – maybe it’s too simple of an idea.
.-= Instinct´s last blog ..Music Friday: A Delcaration =-.

Instinct February 20, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Oh, forgot the federal thing. Being a constitutionalist like I am, I wonder about all those federal rights. Do we really need all that crap? It’s not a power granted to the feds so I really have to wonder about them

Personally, I didn’t know there were that many and need to start some more reading. Over ONE THOUSAND?!? Wow. Crazy. How many are tax based?
.-= Instinct´s last blog ..Music Friday: A Delcaration =-.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: