GayPatriotWest seems to applaud today's overwhelming positive vote in the Vermont legislature to overturn the governor's veto of gay marriage legislation though he again promotes the idea that only the legislature is the right path to legalized gay marriage. A la Peggy Noonan he writes, "silly gay marriage advocates see a popular groundswell for gay marriage in court decisions" and that only Vermont's decision today is an indication of a groundswell for gay marriage. In a linked post, like a robot he wrote, "I commend the legislature for taking up the issue" where he strangely credited conservatism for the effort to pass this legislation. "Now, [legislative actions are] seen as the conservative solution to the controversy over how to recognize same-sex couples." The question remains though if GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt is even a gay marriage advocate to begin with. Why should we even listen to this lonely gay Republican voice on a issue about bringing people together?
In the past, when the judicial branch had ruled that anti-gay marriage legislation was unconstitutional, the site regularly decried such actions as "judicial activism." Following the talking points of the Right, these courts were "legislating from the bench." To GayPatriotWest/Dan Blatt gay rights are special rights, not equal rights. Even in the recent Iowa decision, he just couldn't bring himself to support the court's unanimous decision, instead citing that popular backlash would set the movement back. He's regularly criticized judiciaries' rulings against gay marriage amendments or essentially any kind of judicial action that addresses the discriminatory aspect of anti-gay marriage legislation.
If recognition of gay marriage was promoted through the administrative branch of a state, again GayPatriot was woe to cheer the effort. When Governor Patterson of New York announced that the state would recognize out-of-state gay marriages, since the state had no ban against gay marriage, GayPatriotWest was resigned but unsupportive calling it a decision by "executive fiat," an "end-run around his state Court of Appeals," and simply noting that the governor was on "firmer legal ground." What an endorsement!
Apparently the only branch of the government that gets to have a say on the matter is the legislative branch. The other two don't really count. When legislative bodies create laws, or even constitutional amendments, banning same-sex marriage the sound of crickets is the only opposition at GayPatriot. Even regarding the Vermont decision, GayPatriotWest and his commenters seemed despondent that there wasn't more debate before the legislature's vote enacting the law and some were sure this was a sign of doom to the entire gay marriage effort. Despite the months of effort in creating and passing the legislation, and week of public forum, it still would have been better to continue a debate about gay marriage (read: give more time to national opponents to deconstruct and pick apart the legislation as special rights). One commenter predicts this legislative action will enforce the resolve of states to ban this elsewhere.
Do you understand that? In GayPatriot world, legislative action is the only effort that counts in establishing gay marriage but even that should come with more requirements than regular legislation to really count. See when when people bring down a wall through gay rights advocacy, GayPatriots are right behind it with more bricks and mortar.
GayPatriotWest is someone who thinks gay marriage isn't a fundamental right and requires special commitment and adherence to requirements otherwise not demanded of heterosexual partners. He feels denied that gay conservatives aren't invited to join in discussions about gay marriage (understandably ignoring how they would dissuade and disrupt such an effort as he does regularly on his blog). He feels that gay leaders should remove themselves from authority when their plans do not fully manifest in gay marriage activism. His blog partner GayPatriot/Bruce agrees with writers that insist that (those decrepit, hypersexed) gays do not have the moral fortitude required for marriage and are warping the institution. Instead of recognizing the substantial civil rights that accompany marriage that are denied same-sex partners, he focuses solely on the morality, or obvious lack thereof he sees in the gay community that should first and foremost be the defining factor of the institution of gay marriage.
Gay marriage is a "political trophy" in his world and not a civilly recognized right of union between two committed adults. When he's so focused on unenforceable, personal moral requirements for marriage it's easy to see how he dismisses the fundamental civil liberties in question and the civil privileges being denied gay men and women. And for all the fundamental hurdles he's advocated in the past, he does not get to join in this particular celebration. The gay marriage effort will continue just fine, and probably better, without people like him. There are enough heterosexual bigots already without a few homosexual bigots thrown in. History has shown it's not conservatives that have led us to this more enlightened point in history anyway, where same-sex couples even have the possibility of being married and gay conservatives can promote their agenda without the concern of cognitive schism.