Welcome Instapundit Readers!! — While you are visiting, check out the election news GayPatriot broke earlier this week.

While Ann Althouse finds in yesterday’s Supreme Court Heller decision overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban a victory for women’s righsts (via Instapundit) as the overturned law banned certain guns which are easier for women to use, I see it as significant advance for gay rights victory .

Indeed, I believe this decision is the best ruling for gays in many years, perhaps even more significant than Lawrence v. Texas, the decision overturning sodomy laws. Few states enforced those laws whereas many jurisdictions enforce gun bans. Both these pro-gay rights’ rulings were handed down on June 26, Heller this year, Lawrence in 2003. Given that day’s proximity to the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, we can celebrate all three events during Pride month.

With these ruling, gay people will have greater and more ready access to handguns and so be better able to defend ourselves against gay-bashers. With such a victory for gay rights, I thought I’d check the sites of the various gay organizations to see how they’re celebrating, acknowledging how the constitutional freedom enshrined in the Second Amendment benefits us. Nothing on the websites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) or the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

Silence on such an important victory for gay rights?!?!?

Log Cabin, however, devoted the better part of its homepage to a press release heralding the ruling. At least one gay group gets it. (Note to self: renew Log Cabin membership.) Organization President Patrick Sammon understands how this decision benefits gays:

Unfortunately, too many LGBT Americans still face the threat of anti-gay violence. . . We’re happy the Supreme Court has affirmed the right for us to protect ourselves and our families from harm. Self defense is not a privilege, it’s a right.

Exactly.

Tammy Bruce celebrated the decision on her blog, calling it “good news,” but warning that the 5-4 decision “is far too close for anyone’s comfort.” (Make sure to check out this piece where she builds on her celebration — and her warning.)

(more…)

GayPatriot has exclusively learned that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain held a personal meeting with the head of the national gay Republicans organization, the Log Cabin Republicans.   Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed his meeting with Senator McCain earlier today.

A source with close ties to the Log Cabin Board of Directors provided information about the meeting to GayPatriot earlier this week.  This source disclosed that the Log Cabin meeting was not reflected on Senator McCain’s published schedule in advance and the meeting.  A second source familiar with the Log Cabin-McCain meeting reports that Senator McCain has routine personal meetings that are not shown on the Senator’s public schedule.  

The specific timeframe of the Sammon-McCain meeting is not completely clear, but appears to have taken place within the past couple weeks or so.

Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed the meeting with Senator McCain in email correspondence with GayPatriot earlier today:

“We’ve had a series of productive meetings with the campaign since Sen. McCain won the nomination—including a recent meeting with the Senator.  We expect to have more conversations with the campaign as we head toward November.” — Patrick Sammon, Log Cabin Republicans President — June 25, 2008

Based on published news reports, the meeting with Senator McCain would be the first between any national-level gay Republicans and a Republican Presidental nominee since “The Texas 12″ met with then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000.  Since his first election to the White House, President Bush has never met with anyone representing Log Cabin Republicans or any other American gay organizations.

Again, according to published news reports the Sammon-McCain meeting would be the first face-to-face dialogue between a Republican Presidential standardbearer and the President of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization since the check-refund controversy between LCR and the Dole Campaign in 1995.

There will be more details on this story to follow….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Well, you just KNOW I salivated at this story on the California Gay Marriage issue in the LA Weekly!

California GOP:  The Queer Enablers of Gay Marriage - Patrick Range McDonald & Michael Fleischer

For two weeks [October 1991], queer Angelenos rebelled against a Republican governor [Pete Wilson] they believed had double-crossed them. But two months earlier, on July 29, 1991, Wilson made a crucial decision for the historic advancement of gay rights, something no one could have foreseen: He appointed Judge Ronald M. George to the California State Supreme Court. Nearly 17 years later, the moderate Republican jurist would become a national gay hero.

Last Thursday, it was George’s carefully written majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in California. By nightfall, at the same West Hollywood intersection where a dummy of Pete Wilson went up in flames, gay activists stood on a stage and publicly lauded the judge as “courageous.” Speaker after speaker also praised another Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for promising to “fight” against a November ballot measure that could still outlaw gay marriage in the Golden State.

<….>

Powerful Republicans, through happenstance and well-orchestrated public policy, were leading the charge for the legalization and defense of same-sex marriage in California. It was something state Democrats, the seemingly natural allies of the gay-rights movement, could never completely pull off.

You KNOW you want to read the whole thing now, don’t you!   Read it, READ IT! 

Bottom line for those popping champagne at the California court decision — in order to be true to reality, you must clink your glasses in honor of two Republican Governors — Wilson and Schwarzenegger.

Delicious, no?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When I read Charles Kaiser’s response to (what I called in this post) “a raft of e-mails faulting him for failing to talk to a single gay Republican in his Out magazine article, ‘Washington’s Gay War,’” I knew the organization had scored a major success.

Their call to action (both on the web and in an e-mail blast to members) generated enough correspondence to get that magazine to take notice and respond.

For as long as I have been involved in Log Cabin, particularly when I was a club president in the late 1990s, I faulted the national office for not doing enough to challenge the anti-Republican bias of the gay media.

Many gays may well see gay Republicans as self-hating or otherwise “traitors to the cause” because our media offers slanted coverage of us, highlighting the most hypocritical, relying on stereotypes drawn from books, plays or their own imagination. Gay publications (and even some in the MSM) rarely offer accurate pictures of real live gay conservatives.

If we want our fellow gays to have an accurate picture of us, we need to do something to change the way the media covers us. Kaiser’s article was not the first biased piece, but just another example of shoddy reporting of gay Republicans.

In a welcome change from the past, Log Cabin’s national office refused to take this one lying down. They took action, pointing out the flaws in the article, asking members to contact the magazine. And they got results.

I daresay that the next time Out magazine commissions a piece on gay Republicans, it will turn to someone more willing to interview gay Republicans, listen to us and quote us in his article.

I’m delighted at how swiftly Log Cabin responded to this “hit piece.” They deserve major kudos for their efforts. This is a welcome change. It shows how much we can accomplish when we speak up. And dare to make waves.

Now on to the Advocate.

While working on a piece expanding on this post for Pajamas, I chanced upon Charles Kaiser’s response to a raft of e-mails faulting him for failing to talk to a single gay Republican in his Out magazine article, “Washington’s Gay War.”

Introducing the response, Out editor Aaron Hicklin notes that the article “generated far more than the average grab bag of angry letters from readers,” citing Log Cabin’s call to action specifically. This correspondence, Hicklin believes, “seemed to warrant a response from the author.“

Major kudos to Log Cabin for getting at least one gay media outlet to take notice of the concerns of the oft-misrepresented gay Republicans. It’s unfortunate though that Kaiser’s response only further demonstrates his ignorance of gay Republicans.

Despite our contention that he didn’t talk to any gay Republicans, Kaiser claims he did. He just didn’t see fit to quote them.

He further defends himself by saying that the article was “about gay political wars in Washington” and not gay Republicans. Well, shouldn’t a journalist covering a war strive to cover both sides? Kaiser only covers the Republican side from the perspective of Democrats.

He also contends that none of his correspondents challenged “the facts” in his piece.

Not privy to the correspondence, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of that statement. In the article itself, Kaiser lets others do most of the talking. And maybe no one challenged the various quotations in the article. But, they make claims which they fail to prove, notably that of Washington Post reporter Vargas, “If you come out on the Hill and you’re a Republican, you lose power.”

His article doesn’t reference a single Republican who lost power when he came out.

The issue wasn’t so much the accuracy of the quotations, but whom Kaiser chose to quote. And he himself acknowledged that he didn’t quote the gay Republicans with whom he talked.

(more…)

I am busy working on a couple pieces on the Pennsylvania primary and the Democratic race for the White House which I’d like to post before the polls close today in the Keystone State, so won’t give this the attention it deserves right now, but wanted to alert you to a Log Cabin release which deserves broad circulation.

In a recent piece on gay Republicans in “Out” magazine, the “reporter” Charles Kaiser “failed to talk to one single gay Republican for the article. Our friend Chris Crain, hardly a Republican he (but fair to Republicans on his blog and in person) took note:

But talk about an appallingly bad job… Author Charles Kaiser (”The Gay Metropolis”) was the one tasked with shedding some insight on the phenomenon of closeted gay Republicans. So who did he talk to: Barney Frank, outing activist/ blogger Mike Rogers, an unnamed Democratic political consultant and a gay Washington Post reporter.

What about an actual living, breathing gay Republican (closeted or otherwise)? Wouldn’t they be at least relevant? Could Kaiser not find the number for Log Cabin?

I’ll have more to say on this later, particularly some thoughts about the “reporter” th magazine chose to write this piece. And wondering why some gay journalists, playwrights and screenwriters feel they can write about gay Republicans without ever talking to gay Republicans.

Kudos to Log Cabin for exposing the anti-Republican bias in gay media. And kudos to our friend Chris Crain for the fairness of his blogging.

As I return to Los Angeles from the Log Cabin “convention,” I hope to do a few posts, singling out the salient features of the confab and their implications for the this fall’s presidential race, the future of the organization itself and the attitudes of gay Republicans in general.

First of all, the hotel we stayed at the Town and Country Resort and Convention Center was a most unusual choice. It was far from the center of the city and not within easy walking distance to any interesting locales. Not just that. It seemed that it hadn’t changed since the 1970s, but at least it was well-maintained and had nice landscaping.

I was delighted to learn that most people there were familiar with this blog, with some (including members of Log Cabin’s Board) reading it on a regular basis. Patrick Sammon, Log Cabin’s President, was more visible at this gathering than either of his two previous predecessors as previous meetings. It seemed he wanted to shake hands and chat with all participants.

Until the banquet on Saturday night, the staff did a great job of keeping things moving. At previous conventions, we would sit in sessions or at lunch while the speakers (or Log Cabin staff) blathered on without giving us much time to weigh in with our own thoughts. I was particularly impressed at the lunch on Saturday when they were able to accommodate the Governor without cutting too much into our free time. They made sure the speakers did not go on overlong and allowed for questions afterwards.

The banquet was a different story. You would think that at a “Black Tie Optional” dinner they’d serve hors d’oeuvres. Maybe it was because of the open bar. They wanted to get us a little buzzed so we might bid more readily at the silent auction.

Then, there were presentations before the meal, then presentations afterwards. Not to mention the auction. Like past banquets, this one just seemed it would go on forever. Well, at least, it wasn’t as bad as the one in Dallas in 1998. We were out by about 10 or so.

I was pleased that this “convention” had fewer representatives from national gay-left organizations than past confabs. With John Bolton speaking as well as the Mayor of San Diego, the County’s Republican District Attorney (Bonnie Dumanis) and the Governor of the Golden State, there seemed to be more Republicans here than at past gatherings. And we knew it was a Republican crowd when participants rose to give an extended standing ovation to Eric Alva, an openly gay veteran, the first man wounded in the Iraq war.

(more…)

After an excellent talk from future Secretary of State John Bolton and current California Governor Arnold Schwarzengger. BoifromTroy has more on what the latter had to say.  

Rather than expand on what Scott has to say, I’ll just comment briefly on the Govenor’s presence.  He seemed almost Reaganesque when he spoke, yet when he sat down for what he called an Oprah-style question-and-answer session with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon, he seemed less in his element. 

Hearing John Bolton, especially the facility with which he handled the questions and the deep knowledge he showed of world affairs and the politics of other nations in his responses, convinced me ever more that he would make a first-rate Secretary of State.  

The Governor talked a lot about “post-partisanship” and made clear his strong support for John McCain, even his commitment to victory in Iraq (though the Governor did not use that word), he also said opposes the marriage initiative that social conservatives are trying to put on the state ballot this fall.

It’s a half-hour into the townhall meeting where members are supposed to offer their input, but we still have not been allowed to speak.  Patrick is now defending Log Cabin’s decision to run ads attacking Mitt Romney last fall in the GOP presidential contest.  

What further comments I have on this meeting, I’ll include below the “jump:”

(more…)

I have to say I’ve, by and large, been impressed with James Vaughn’s presentation in this “On Both Sides of Log Cabin.” While I don’t support much of the legislation he advocates, I do like the broad “strategy” he has outlined for talking about issues, noting for example how certain core conservative ideas have particular benefits for gay people.

He also notes the particular challenges in talking to gay Democrats, largely because they can’t defend their choice of partisan affiliation. As he wrote in his Powerpoint presentation:

Often they don’t know why they are Democrats except that in what the LGBT media or liberal media told them. Often not informed about current events.

That does seem to be the case that so few of them only understand conservative ideas as presented by the MSM (and gay media). No wonder some of them have trouble addressing my posts because I put forward ideas which such media either doesn’t represent or mispresents.

Back to his point about where the GOP, in particular conservative ideas are good for gay people. He singled out:

• Social Security Accounts—enabling gay people to leave them to our spouses, even partners in relationships not recognized by the state.
• Gun Control—how it allows us to protect ourselves from hate crimes (echoing a point I made here)
• Small business—Republican policies promote entrepreneurship which benefit gay people who want to set up their own businesses
• War on Terror—GOP has better policies for confronting challenging Islamofascism at a time when Islamic countries are executing gays.

I don’t agree with all the legislation that James (and Log Cabin) favors. But, I do like that he wants to talk about how conservative ideas benefit gay people. I have long believed Republican ideas are better for gay people because smaller government makes it easier for “marginalized” groups to set up their own institutions and businesses to respond to changes in the marketplace.

That is, when we don’t look to the government to provide solutions to our problems, we will be more likely to address them on our own. The record shows the private sector is more efficient at making things works—and responding to social change (see e.g., the number of private corporations adopting non-discrimination policies and providing domestic partnership benefits).

James also talked about how we can find common ground with social conservatives, reminding them if the state can take away gay people’s freedoms, it could take away their freedom to home school their children.

In the past, Log Cabin has failed to talk about how conservative ideas benefit gay people. That James outlined a strategy to do so in a panel at this Log Cabin gathering is a most welcome development. Now, let’s see if the national office makes this an official policy.

At “breakout” session where James Vaughn who is the California Director for Log Cabin is speaking. He just noted that a survey he conducted for the group found that most members found it easier to come out as gay in Republican circles than they did coming out as Republican in gay circles. Reminds me of something I blogged on when we were over at blogspot. (Reposting that as first posted on October 24, 2004 below the “jump.”)

James also noted the difference between “rational and irrational” gay activists. The irrational ones won’t even give us the time of day as soon as they learn our partisan affiliation. Hmm. . . some who comment to this blog spend a good deal of their day, but devote no time trying to understand our ideas.

And he noted how many gay people affiliate with the Democratic people because they’re just following the crowd.

Seems that with the post I have re-posted below, this particular piece kind of has a theme, so will conclude it wondering why it is that some gay activists, while preaching tolerance, are so intolerant toward gay Republicans

(more…)

Tomorrow at the Log Cabin “Convention” here in San Diego, after a just-announced visit from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, attendees will participate in a “town hall meeting” where we will be able to weigh in on “Log Cabin’s role in the presidential election.”  This will be the one chance members will have to offer their input on whether Log Cabin should endorse its party’s nominee for President of the United States.

It should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I will be speaking out in favor of Log Cabin endorsing John McCain.

While I do favor this endorsement, I wonder if it will make any difference.  Four years ago, when the group failed to endorse the party’s then-nominee, the MSM made it seem gay Republicans were deserting the president in droves, when it fact, only a few abandoned Bush.

Perhaps that endorsement created the impression that Bush was captive to social conservatives.  It may even have cost him support among socially liberal suburbanites and others who might have been inclined to vote for the president because of his leadership in the War on Terror.

But, it didn’t cost him the support of the overwhelming majority of gay Republicans.

Given that we know that most gay Republicans stuck with Bush in 2004 despite Log Cabin’s endorsement and with an increasing number of gay Republicans able to voice their support for the party (through blogs), it will be difficult for Log Cabin to claim it speaks for all gay Republicans.  Should it fail it to endorse, honest journalists will need note how inconsequential the 2004 non-endorsement was to gay Republicans (well, given the state of the MSM, expect most journalists to leave that out).

All that said, in reading the tea leaves this year (through parsing public statements of Log Cabin officials and listening to conversations with members of the organization), I expect the group to endorse John McCain for president.  This endorsement may actually make the 2004 non-endorsement a boon to the 2008 GOP nominee, as it will show that recent efforts of Democrats and left-wing blogs (and pundits) notwithstanding, our nominee retains the support or more socially liberal Republicans even as he reaches out to social conservatives.

A non-endorsement will only serve to further marginalize Log Cabin.  

That said, I do believe Log Cabin’s Board will endorse John McCain. And those gay Republicans will join the million gay Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 as well as countless Independents and numerous disgruntled Democrats in selecting this courageous veteran as our choice for the next President of the United States.

We have often faulted Log Cabin for not criticizing the other national gay groups for make broad attacks on Republicans or misrepresenting the stands or statements of individual Republicans. We have also criticized them for failing to take on Democrats as aggressively as they take on their own party.

With their recent release faulting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for wondering why sane gay people would join the GOP, that seems to be changing.

To encourage Log Cabin to issue more such statements and to make it an organization policy to take on gay groups’ narrow and distorted views of Republicans in general and gay Republicans in particular, could we introduce resolutions at Log Cabin’s “convention” (which begins later today), I would write one requiring the national office to regularly criticize the heads of national gay groups, the groups themselves and even other prominent gay figures when they attack Republicans, including and especially gay Republicans.

Too often, Log Cabin seems more interested in securing its place at the table of the gay organizations in our nation’s capital than in promoting the party with which it claims affiliation. Yet, this self-proclaimed Republican organization doesn’t seem to recognize that many of those groups see themselves as gay auxiliaries of a broader left-wing movement, promoting an accomodationist foreign policy, pushing for an increasing government role in the lives of individuals and defeating Republicans at the ballot box.

If Log Cabin wishes to regain the credibility it has lost in Republican circles and show its commitment to the GOP, it should more regularly challenge those gay voices which seek to undermine our party and thwart its thwart its electoral success.

And I wish I could introduce a resolution to that effect at the group’s “convention” this week.

Usually when I describe Log Cabin’s coming gathering in San Diego, I make sure to put the word “convention” in quotation marks. The reason I do so is that at most organizations’ conventions, the assembled delegates, representatives of chapters around the country, vote on the organization’s platform, policy statements, resolutions and/or other proposals to set its agenda for the coming year. And they elect national officers.

At the Log Cabin “convention” later this week in San Diego, we will be doing no such thing. There will be one session called the “Road Ahead” where participants will have a chance to offer “input about Log Cabin’s role in the presidential election.” But, the delegates won’t get to vote on that role. It will be left to the unelected Board to determine whether or not the ostensibly Republican organization will be endorsing the party’s nominee in this fall’s campaign.

As a result, “convention” participants don’t really have much of a stake in the proceedings. As they don’t really have much say over the direction of the organization.

Shortly after Log Cabin ran a series of ads attacking then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, we not only wondered who was paying for their ads, we also questioned why Log Cabin was running them.

Turns out we weren’t the only ones. I learned later that several club presidents (and other local leaders) were not happy with the ad campaign. And even though they represent the organization in various jurisdictions around the country — and are actually elected by their members — they heard about them the same time we did. (And like us, they too wondered who was paying for the ads.)

The Board approved the ads. Just as it sets the organization’s agenda. But, unlike those club leaders, Board members are not elected by Log Cabin members. It seems they’re a self-perpetuating lot, but I’m not really sure how they’re chosen as I can’t find Log Cabin’s bylaws on the web (though I did find the Bylaws of the Virginia chapter which I wrote back in 1997, though amended slightly since then).

(more…)

When I moved from the Washington, D.C-area to Southern California in 1999, I resolved to give up activist politics. Tired of being labeled “that gay Republican,” I wanted people to see me as more than a seemingly discordant mix of sexuality and conservatism and instead recognize my diverse passions, to treat me as a complex individual rather than dismiss me as an apparent oxymoron.

While, from time to time, I did share my political views on a friend’s listserv, in my first years in LA, I, by and large, steered clear of politics. At one point though, I almost did come out of my political closet. When, in the spring of 2000, the then-leader of Log Cabin threw a hissy fit, attacking publicly the twelve gay Republicans who met with George W. Bush, the then-presumptive Republican presidential nominee, I castigated him in an Op-Ed, “Of Babies and Bath Water.” That leader soon changed course. I withdrew my piece before it was published.

My public silence then continued until 2004, indeed, many of my friends in that period had no clue about my political leanings.

That changed when some blog (I think it was Instapundit, but it may have been Polipundit which I then read regularly) linked a blogger who was telling Log Cabin to shove it for failing to endorse President Bush’s reelection. So much did I agree with the post that I wrote the blogger and was delighted (and honored) to receive Bruce’s response (though he did not then identify himself by name). Soon we were exchanging e-mails and Instant Messages. Before long, he invited me to join the blog.

The rest is history.

I’ve now been blogging for over three and one-half years and have, by my estimate, written well over one thousand posts. As I was preparing to attend Log Cabin’s San Diego “Convention,” I realized I may not have penned (metaphorically speaking) a single one of those (on a great variety of topics not limited to politics) were it not for Log Cabin.

I started blogging largely because I believed that in the 2004 campaign, Log Cabin did not speak for gay Republicans, even as the media made it seem they did. As if all (or a great majority of) gay Republicans were refraining from supporting Bush, with many voting against him. Log Cabin’s then-political director claimed gay support for the then-GOP nominee would be “in the single digits.”

I wanted to join the then-anonymous GayPatriot in challenging that notion, contending that there were gay Republicans who did not define ourselves by our sexuality and who considered a great variety of issues when casting our votes.

(more…)

In last week’s “Inclusion WEST,” Log Cabin’s West Coast e-mail, its editors included a blurb noting that one of its members serves on a committee of Hillary Clinton backers:

Gay General – The Closet & Member of Log Cabin
Made famous by CNN/YouTube debate, Kerr seeks repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

During the 43 years Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr served in the military, he didn’t so much lie about his sexual orientation as he let others draw conclusions from intentionally vague statements. [snip] Kerr told Southern Voice he served silently for most of his military career. “I didn’t bring it up,” he said. [regarding his YouTube] question] “What happened was in April or May of 2007, one of my friends called and asked me if I would add my name to the list of veterans for Hillary, and I said ‘yes’ because I knew she supported a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Kerr said. “I totally forgot about that at the time I submitted the YouTube question. I probably belong to 12 or 14 other organizations. As a matter of fact, I’m still a member of the Log Cabins Republicans.”
http://www.southernvoice.com/2008/3-21/news/localnews/8296.cfm

(Bold and italics in original.)

While Kerr may have forgotten that he had agreed to add his name to a list of veterans supporting the Democratic presidential contender, he never asked to have it removed. This March 1, 2008 release from the former First Lady’s campaign includes him in a list of “Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief.”

Twenty-five days later, Log Cabin boasts that he’s a member of Log Cabin. Seems Log Cabin is so delighted to get media recognition that it would advertise this Clinton supporter’s membership in the organization.

If we could introduce resolutions at Log Cabin’s convention this week, I would pen one rescinding the membership of anyone in the organization who publicly endorses the candidacy or joins or the campaign a Democratic candidate in a contested partisan election where a Republican is running.

I may need to tweak the language, so it’s clear that if a member supported a Democrat and told friends about that support (but did not otherwise advertise the support), he would not forfeit the membership. Or further define public endorsement. By it, I mean statement in a newspaper on a blog (as a post) or at the podium of a public meeting. (I might further want to tweak it to allow for endorsements of non-Republican candidates in unusual races like the 2006 Connecticut Senate race.)

The language would allow a member to refrain from endorsing the Republican candidate or choosing to vote against him.

If Log Cabin is serious about being a Republican organization, it will revoke Kerr’s membership or ask him to remove his name from the list of “Flag Officers” supporting Mrs. Clinton.

As the Log Cabin Convention (this Thursday through Sunday in San Diego) approaches, I’ll be doing a series of posts on Log Cabin at 15, this being the fifteen anniversary of the opening of the national office.

When I learned that my candidate for Secretary of State will be speaking, I resolved to go and look forward to leading a standing ovation for this good man and hearing his remarks.

First, could you let me know if you’ll be attending and are interested in setting up a cocktail hour for GayPatriot readers. Thanks.

Second, please feel free to use the comments section to this post to offer general thoughts about the organization, address the more specific ones to the various pieces I’ll be posting. Unfortunately the convention agenda does not allow for members or clubs to introduce resolutions or vote on the group’s policies.

I encourage you to suggest resolutions you believe a gay Republican organization should consider. Perhaps, I’ll distribute these in San Diego and wonder why this convention does not have the aspects of a typical organization’s convention where members gather from all over the country to elect officers and set the agenda for the following year.

Were there something to vote on, members might feel they have a stake in the organization and be more likely to spend the money and take the time to attend.

Not too long ago, a Republican friend who, like me, receives Log Cabin’s regular e-newsletter “Inclusion Wins,” wondered if that title were a misnomer for when it comes to social conservatives and the GOP, Log Cabin doesn’t seem very inclusive. While they wanted the party to include gay people, many in the organization are eager to exclude social conservatives.

Now, I agree that social conservatives sometimes have too much sway over the direction of the GOP, particularly in some states. The problem is not that they’re part of the party, but that they attempt to control it. It’s not giving them a place at the table that bothers me, it’s giving them the seat of honor.

But, some in Log Cabin would rather they left the party altogether. Should John McCain win the White House this fall, James Vaughn, the group’s California director commented, “The phone line between the White House and the religious right will be cut.” Seems they delight in cutting so