The Homosexual Lobby

Palm Center

I see the media frequently cites something called the “Palm Center”
for studies and opinions on issues relating to homosexuals in the military, typically describing it as a “think tank” on such issues.
Its web site (as of 2010-03-05) describes it as follows:

“The Palm Center,
a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
produces scholarship designed to enhance the quality of public dialogue
about critical and controversial public policy issues.
Since 1998, the Center has been a leader in
commissioning and disseminating research
in the areas of gender, sexuality, and the military.”

It does not take a lot of imagination to figure out
where this “think tank” is coming from.
And a look at some of the material on the web site confirms that:
It is just another advocacy group for the causes of the PC left,
in this case dealing with the issues it describes.
Don’t expect unbiased information here,
let alone anything critical of promoting homosexuals in the military.
Too bad the media refuses to identify it as an advocacy group.

An obvious question is: “Just who funds this ‘think tank’.”
Want to bet it’s funded by a lot of Hollywood homosexuals?
Or perhaps it’s funded by the state of California,
as part of its university system.
But if so, consider this:
We’ve been reading about how broke California in general,
and the University of California system in particular, is—
raising tuition, laying off workers, freezing salaries, etc.
If California is cutting its spending on the essentials of university education,
what is it doing funding
this politically-oriented homosexual advocacy organization?
What does that have to do with educating California’s students?

Let’s be clear: “enhanc[ing] the quality of public dialogue
about critical and controversial public policy issues”
is not terribly relevant to educating students.
And this institute is neither neutral nor objective
on those “public policy issues.”

Miscellaneous Articles

Why It's Time for LGBT Democrats ...
by Michael Rowe
Huffington Post, 2009-06-29

The news that 10th annual LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee
at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington on June 25th
raised a million dollars for the DNC
must have been greeted with a sigh of relief from the Obama administration.
The success of the event, which reportedly carried a price tag of between $1000 and $34,000 a plate,
was proof that
LGBT Democrats remain a loyal and dependable cash cow for the party.
LGBT Americans mobilized millions in 2008 to elect Barack Obama to the presidency,
working tirelessly to ensure his success....


[A commentator to this post, "Balzac", added the following comment:]

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" might soon be replaced by
a new policy called
"Don't Wear Pasties and Twirl Your Shlong".

It seems like the core of the problem is that
some in the military would find it hard to get their killing attitude on
while some openly gay man was sashaying along.

Think about it - In the military,
everyone including women are expected to act like angry straight men.
None of the traditionally feminine character attributes
seem to be institutionally respected in the military.

Even women have to pretend to be straight men.
They're not sashaying along.

Everyone's marching along in formation,
and one guy who is not trying to hide it
because he's gay and he's proud of it.
Even women aren't allowed to be proudly showing their femininity
in the military.

Yet I agree it's horrible, unjust and silly
that gay men and women aren't allowed to openly serve.
So they must change the rule to not discriminate against gays
but instead to directly address the style of how the military presents its self.

The military is still going to favor machismo over effete presentation style,
and it will continue to favor marching over parades when a unit is on the move.

[When criticized by Rowe, Balzac claimed he was “just joking.”]

The Battle Over ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
New York Times Letters to the Editor, 2010-03-06

Re “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Change” (Op-Ed, March 5):


To the Editor:

There are so many flaws in Merrill A. McPeak’s arguments
that one scarcely knows where to begin.
What jumps out most forcefully, however, is this:
At a time when we need every dedicated, intelligent soldier we can muster,
how can we afford to turn away even one
for the arbitrary reason of sexual orientation?

Lisa Halttunen
Plainfield, N.J., March 5, 2010

Gay Rights and American Foreign Policy
Never the twain should meet
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2011-12-23

The announcement that the US government will henceforth push
the achievement of “gay rights” internationally,
as a key element of its foreign policy,
gives new meaning to the phrase “blowback” –
and cut out the snickering!
Because the self-righteousness and narcissism of American policymakers,
in this instance,
will have very real consequences for gay people throughout the world,
and it isn’t going to be pretty.

[Raimondo focuses on the impact of this decision on "gay people".
My concern is rather different:
That pushing this issue will have strongly adverse effects
on the American national interest
(something that feminists and the homo lobby seem utterly indifferent to).
In particular, it introduces yet another bone of contention,
and source of hostility and animosity,
into America's relationship with conservative Muslims in general,
and Saudi Arabia in particular.
Sadly, but truly, America now and for the foreseeable future
is dependent on Saudi oil.
How far can we push the Saudi people (not to mention their ruling class)
to violate their core religious beliefs
before they decide that America really is the "Great Satan",
and find ways to raise the price of oil?
Will the homo lobby then stand up and take responsibility
for the harm they have done to the American national interest?

And what about the Democratic Party?
In its support for feminism in Afghanistan and "gay rights" throughout the world,
it is itself a principle cause of "why they hate us".
But see if they will admit that fundamental truth.]

Evangelical weakness in gay Boy Scouts debate could hurt GOP
by Ralph Z. Hallow
Washington Times, 2013-05-20

Signs of waning evangelical power in the nation's culture wars and in Republican policy — and some unexpected challenges for GOP candidates — loom as the 103-year-old Boy Scouts of America gears up for a definitive vote this week on whether to welcome openly gay youths into the organization's ranks.

If the BSA delegates gathering just outside Dallas vote to admit gays, it will reinforce the growing notion that evangelical Protestants and their conservative Catholic allies no longer can muster their troops as they once did, in such battles as state referendums over same-sex marriage and the 1996 enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"There's no lobby more vicious than the homosexual lobby, and the 65 to 80 million-member evangelical constituency provides no troops for the fight against that lobby," said David Lane, president of Pastors & Pews and a leading religious right political organizer. "Evangelicals are playing checkers in a chess game."

A prominent Mormon and board member of a national conservative political organization said privately said that his church, bruised from public relations battles with gay-rights activist groups, has been left holding the financial bag after other denominations failed to come through with promised aid in the fight for Proposition 8, California's voter initiative against same-sex marriage. The Mormon church has moved on to other battles in the cultural wars rather than take on the gay-rights activists.

After floating a plan to end the 3.9 million-member group's ban on gays, BSA leaders have crafted a compromise that would allow openly gay Scouts to participate but maintain the ban on adult gay Scout leaders. Even that move sparked adamant opposition from some Christian leaders, especially those who ally with the Republican Party.

Reed's role in question

Fellow evangelicals aren't buying, for example, longtime evangelical political strategist Ralph Reed's explanation of why he is being paid by the BSA leadership to help resolve the issue.

Mr. Reed, the evangelical founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition who has been involved in Scouting for 43 years, said he took the job to build bridges between BSA officials and religious leaders who oppose changing the policy on homosexuality.

"My role was to facilitate a dialogue based on mutual understanding and respect, including respect for the deeply-held religious views of the evangelical community," Mr. Reed, an Eagle Scout, said in a statement. "At no time have I advocated to anyone that the Scouts should change their membership policy."

"Nice try," said a skeptical John Stemberger, founder of OnMyHonor.net, a coalition of Scout leaders and others fighting the proposed change.

"Ralph can issue all the statements on his opposition to the pro-gay resolution he wants, but he was paid money by the BSA to help them set up meetings to try and pass the resolution — and actions speak louder than words," said Mr. Stemberger, a constitutional lawyer, Eagle Scout and father of two boys in Scouting.

Mr. Reed has the support of Stu Epperson, chairman of the country's largest Christian radio network and an opponent of the proposed policy change. Mr. Epperson said in a statement that Mr. Reed's efforts "helped us more fully understand the enormous pressure the BSA is under to accommodate the gay agenda. Those Scout leaders (I'm told they are in the minority) opposed to the change need and deserve our support."

BSA officials say they fully understand the angst the proposed change engenders.

"The Boy Scouts of America respects the deeply held religious beliefs of the faith community," said Deron Smith, BSA public relations director. "Ralph Reed is a lifelong [Scout] and supporter of the program and has helped the Boy Scouts arrange conversations with the faith community."

GOP tensions

From President Obama on down, Democrats almost universally support gay-rights claims for equal treatment, but Republicans are a different story.

If the BSA admits openly gay Scouts, some Republican candidates and officeholders will be in tight spots, whether they endorse or reject the change. Opponents of the proposed change have been unable to muster the big names or organizational muscle that supporters can boast.

Mr. Stemberger said he temporarily set aside his law practice and minimized his work with the Florida Family Policy Council "to focus full-time" on OnMyHonor.net, which aims to keep "sex and politics" out of Scouting. But there has been no visible nationwide massing of born-again Christians against the issue, even though polls and conversations with evangelicals show them to be intensely negative on easing the ban.

The political sensitivity of the issue for the national Scouting organization is evident not only from the hiring of Mr. Reed, who was the first director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition in 1989, but also in the mostly tight-lipped stand on the issue by the BSA and its largest local unit, BSA's Utah National Parks Council, which last week sided with proponents of allowing gay Scouts to participate but declined to acknowledge publicly that it took a stand at all.

Opponents of the BSA resolution say it would require every Scout troop, regardless of its chartering organization's religious convictions, to accept "open and avowed homosexual" youths. The ban on adult gay leaders, they say, cannot survive long after that.

"Even though the proposed resolution would not apply to adults immediately, legal experts estimate the new rule will also extend to everyone in the BSA, including adults, within a couple of years after lawsuits are brought by gay activists under nondiscrimination clauses around the country," Mr. Stemberger said.

Religious divide

The issue may deepen the divide between many who are one with Mr. Reed's brand of Christianity and Mormons, the majority of whom are also on the religious right and supporters of the GOP.

The behind-the-scenes effectiveness of the Mormon Church, which sponsors more than a third of all Scout troops in America, is becoming more visible and appears to be nudging the GOP a bit toward a more libertarian stand on some social and cultural issues. Up to a point, Mormons and evangelicals think that the more libertarian the nation's political center of gravity, the lower the risk of government meddling in religious matters.

But overall, it's Mormonism that may be on the ascendancy. The nation's best-known Mormon politician — Mitt Romney — unequivocally endorsed gay equality in Scouting in 1994, long before his 2012 presidential race.

"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation," Mr. Romney said at the time, adding that it's "the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue."