Get PJ Media on your Apple

GOProud at CPAC: ‘There Are a Few in Our Movement Who Just Don’t Like Gay People’

LaSalvia: "Opposing gay marriage is not, in and of itself, bigotry.”

by
Rodrigo Sermeño

Bio

March 15, 2013 - 6:38 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – After the American Conservative Union (ACU) – the organization hosting the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference – denied GOProud the opportunity to be an official sponsor of CPAC and have a booth at the event, the Competitive Enterprise Institute invited the gay conservative group to participate in a panel.

The Thursday event titled “A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet” featured GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, GOProud adviser Liz Mair, GOProud board member Margaret Hoover, and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin making the conservative case for same-sex marriage.

LaSalvia opened the panel by delivering an account of the GOP’s attitude toward gay rights.

“There are a few in our movement who just don’t like gay people, and in 2013 that’s just not OK in America anymore,” said LaSalvia to the approximately one hundred people who attended the panel.

“People should be allowed to settle down, be monogamous, get married and be happy,” he said in arguing gay marriage is a conservative value.

The audience – younger CPAC members including quite a few conservative gays and lesbians – welcomed the panel’s message of tolerance and LaSalvia’s vision of expanding outreach and building a winning coalition across different groups.

“What brings us together are our shared principles and values. It’s not a hundred percent agreement on every single policy position; it’s our common vision of government – a government that puts freedom first. We can disagree on some specific policies and still understand that we’re bringing the same principles and values to situations,” said LaSalvia.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
LaSalvia deserves credit for saying aloud what should not even be necessary to say; that opposing same-sex marriage is not, in and of itself, bigotry. Unfortunately, he all but takes this back by saying that "there are a few in our movement who just don't like gay people, and in 2013 that's just not OK in America anymore."

It is not necessary to "like black people" to recognize that black people have the right to vote. It is not necessary to "like Jews" to recognize that Jews no less than Christians have the right to free exercise of religion. It is not necessary to "like" someone to work together with that person in the pursuit of a political goal which is held in common.

The very concept of a "gay community" is a recent political construct, whose roots go back a mere 120 years, and which is rooted in pseudoscience no less nonsensical than phrenology. In the late 19th century, the homosexually-inclined and partisans of the then-new pseudoscience of psychology posited that homosexual inclinations rendered certain people a "third sex"; from this came the belief that "homosexuality" was a phenomenon distinct from "heterosexuality; that as a separate phenomenon from "heterosexuality," "homosexuality" had detectable causes and could be "cured."

None of this had---or has---any scientific foundation whatsoever; these were merely assumptions, many which have become ingrained over time. The "third sex" construct had been pretty much abandoned by the end of the first quarter of the 20th century, but the assumption that "homosexuality" is a distinct phenomenon, rather than a preference which some people experience to a greater or lesser degree, has remained a persistent delusion among so-called scientists no less than the general public.

As anyone who made it through high school geometry knows, if you start with an error at the beginning of an angle you come out with a wildly inaccurate result at the end of the angle. Likewise, if you start off with erroneous pseudoscientific assumptions and proceed without examining them, your results will be wildly inaccurate. The assumption/presumption that there is a bright-line distinction between "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" has added nothing to human knowledge---has, indeed, hindered it---but has instead created an ever-malleable catchall political identity.

The "gay community" cannot define its own parameters---or, rather, redefines them constantly as political convenience dictates. A year or so ago, a "gay softball league" in the Seattle area refused to let "bisexuals" participate because they "weren't gay enough"---despite "bisexuals" being the "B" in the ubiquitous "LGBT" acronym. The attitude towards "bisexuals" in the gay-rights movement is problematic; self-described "bisexuals" are often despised or mistrusted as people who are insufficiently committed to homosexuality or lack the nerve to truly "come out"---at the same time, people who leave their heterosexual marriages or relationships are lauded as "finally having the courageto get in touch with their feelings." However, just as news reports of people who use guns to protect themselves from marauders are routinely sloughed by the media, while stories of "gun violence" are played up, the stories of people who leave the "gay community" for heterosexual relationships are seldom, if ever, recounted---though they, too, exist.

This one-sided reportage is done in the service of maintaining the foundational fiction of "the gay community"---the existence of a bright-line distinction. It is necessary to keep this fiction beyond question because without it the basis for demanding "rights"---the supposed immutability of sexual orientation---falls to pieces, and homosexual behavior devolves to a mere preference, like a penchant for blondes or redheads.

This is not to say that the sexual preferences of the homosexually-inclined are not, in many cases, overwhelming; that they should not be free to pursue these inclinations, within age-of-consent limits, without legal sanction; nor that there should not be some form of domestic-partnership legal protections for long-term relationships. It is merely to point out that these social policy determinations do not rise to the level of "rights."

By approaching these issues from a "gay identity" perspective, LaSalvia is inadvertently starting from a position staked out by a personal-relationship movement which is grounded in the equivalent of "climate-change science." It is unlikely that he realizes this, since the leftwing presumptions which constitute "gay identity" have pervaded the homosexual community for well over forty years, and to reject them would render him more ostracized than his endorsements of fiscal conservatism already have.





1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a need for a modern dictionary to convert many modern words to their traditional meanings, here's a start:

1) Gay = Homosexual
2) Liberal/Progressive/Socialist = Communist
3) Diversity = Liberal/Progressive/Socialist Racism
4) Affirmative Action = Anti-Caucasian Male Racism
5) Fair = Unfair
6) Revenues = Taxes
7) Revenue Neutral = Evil Tax Shifting Nothingness
8) Climate Change = Discredited Communist Scare Tactics
9) Peak Oil = Discredited Communist Scare Tactics
10) Racists = Patriots With Anti-Communist Sentiments
11) Republican Establishment = Communists
12) Democrats = Communists
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There are more than a few in the Gay Identity Movement that dont like Christians, and seek to destroy and disempower Christians and Christianity everywhere....pushing it into people's basements and out of the public square.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (56)
All Comments   (56)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If the GOP insists on making the religious right their bedrock, they will continue to lose. Someone commented that to accept same-sex marriage meant you are not truly conservative. But there is a reason why our republic form of government and religion are seperated, so we don't end up like Islam where the law can mean whatever the Imam currently in charge decides it means. When it comes to government, the Constitution should be our only guide. And marriage is not specified, meaning, it falls to the states to decide.
IMHO,same-sex marriage isgagging at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If you arenot gay,why do you care other than the satisfaction of telling others how to live their lives? If you object based on your 'Christian' values, you might want to review the part where only God gets to judge others. Let the Diety do his job and butt out of it. You can say,"I told you so," when you make it through the pearly gates.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is incumbent upon those who want to re-define and reinvent something to justify the change. What is your justification for creating a new form of marriage?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is so much wrong in this article that I hardly know where to begin. De Salvia is only mouthing the standard same-sex marriage propontent's talking points and believe me, he hit most of them.

“There are a few in our movement who just don’t like gay people, and in 2013 that’s just not OK in America anymore,” said LaSalvia to the approximately one hundred people who attended the panel.

You see, if for any reason you happen to be against same-sex marriage, then you are a 12th century bigot who wants to persecute homosexuals. It can't be that you just don't see the social benefit in same-sex marriage, no, no, no, you have to be a bigot.

The homosexual movement started out claiming that it simply wanted the right to live their lives as they saw fit. So sodomy laws were thrown out. But that proved, as will all movements, not to be enough. So then the rallying cry was for gay marriage. Only that didn't work out, so the label had to be changed to "same-sex" marriage, because there is NOT one state in our fair union that doesn't allow gays to marry under the same rules and guidelines as heterosexuals. One man, one woman. There is no question "Are you gay" on any marriage license application in any state. So, like the global warming believers, the wordsmiths came up with a better phrase, because it is hard to believe in global warming when your house is covered in 5 feel of snow. So we went from global warming to "climate change" and now the mantra has gone from gay marriage to "same-sex marriage." It is all smoke and mirrors.

“What brings us together are our shared principles and values. It’s not a hundred percent agreement on every single policy position; it’s our common vision of government – a government that puts freedom first. We can disagree on some specific policies and still understand that we’re bringing the same principles and values to situations,” said LaSalvia"

If the basis of their organization is to promote same-sex marriage, but they have other issues that are more conservatives, why don't they try to get the left wing gay groups to come to their side on those issues, since the foundation of all those groups is the same issue, same-sex marriage. Instead, they are trying to change the conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage, not the liberals who oppose their small government/fiscal responsibility issues.

I hear a lot of claptrap about how the conservative movement in this nation must move to the center to be more 21th Century? Why? Where are the voices demanding the left move more to the center? How many times have we heard the phrase "moderate" Republican? Where are the "moderate" Democrats? They don't exist. Why should CPAC bend when the left is not willing to? And anyone who proposes that a basic tenet of conservatism, marriage between a man and a woman, should be relaxed to become more "moderate" is only wanting to water down what conservatives believe thinking we can win more votes by doing so.

Don't fall for the emotional appeal of GOProud. It is pure Gramsci, and pure Marxism. Destroy the family/church and you will be able to raise good little Marxists from cradle to grave. Why do you think there is such a push to teach "Heather has two mommies?"

Gays claim they are persecuted because they are not allowed to marry, but have to add a caveat to that by saying " the person of my choice." i.e. "I can marry under the same rules as heterosexuals, but I want to be treated as special."

I stand with CPAC and if GOProud wants to not be thought of as a one issue organization, then it needs to appeal to those whom they have a common bond with to encourage the goals of conservatives, not change the minds of conservatives. If GOProud is NOT a one issue organization, it needs to accept the differences and move on to other issues.



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I recall reading ~ 1 year ago the states/ communities that do indeed have SSM laws on the books for some years, >10% of those communities actually partake in said marriage.

Not to mention the 1st same-sex couple to marry some years back have already divorced.

I grew up and was later stationed in CA's Bay Area. I have many lifelong homosexual, lesbian friends.

The overwhelming # of those friends, and were in our mid-late 30's nowadays - DON'T wish to marry.

There's such a minuscule % of same-sex advocates who indeed wish to marry.

If GOProud is such the mainstream of the Conservative homosexual, lesbian mindset - why is there not thousands/ tens of thousands etc., attending or providing video to CPAC?

Will SSM be a nationally recognized union, taking place in every state sometime in the future? Sure I believe it will.

Though the participants insofar have been a pittance, collectively.

IMO it's more of a, 'That group can do it. Though I don't and most of my friends don't either, there are some who probably do so..' shtick.

Again I'm not saying SSM shouldn't be allowed nor advocating CPAC turning their collective noses at the GoProud, like minded groups.

The emphasis SHOULD be on the Conservative-minded/ advocating forefront. I believe that aspect is lost in the ether for the CPAC higher-ups.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Footnotes:

1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
At the risk of being tiresome, let me point out that whatever Corinthians says may inform your own personal opposition to homosexual conduct, or giving legal sanction to same-sex marriage, but does not offer others a political reason to do so.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose same-sex marriage initiatives on political grounds which have nothing whatever to do with Biblical texts. I suggest you familiarize yourself with some of them if you want people who do not share your own Biblical beliefs to take you seriously.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wholeheartedly agree with buzzsawmonkey on this, and Im a Christian. That isnt to say that ideas that originate within the Christian tradition arent appropriate for informing legislation. And that the Christian tradition itself is still the basis of the organizaiton of society (which is what is being proposed to dismantle).

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So if we dismantle the Abraham tradition (Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt on her way fleeing Sodom)we find in Judaism , Christianity and Islam then who are we ?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Nobody said anything about "dismantling the Abraham tradition"; I was merely suggesting that if you want other people to listen to your thoughts on a political issue, you find some way to express those thoughts in a political manner rather than as a sermonette.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I still on the fence with this issue. If i was in love with my true Love soul mate ,vision God has given me this person to marry only a mission from God would prevent me from marry so love is powerful and who should interfere except when your Eve worship Satan the Devil like Eve do , then you must chose between God and your Eve.
these are not easy tests and poor Lilith forewarned fled the test before love would overtake in the test and perhaps Adam would have been the one to see the Handsome Satan with Snake in his hand and Lilith thought if she stayed from her love for Adam that would take deep hold of her heart she would fail as Adam failed with Eve
this is not easy this love
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
footnote
The problem with atheist/agnostic modern world you are in delusion do not believe in Adam and Eve and the handsome holding the snake in his hand and just believe in the monkey kind of love
good luck with that marriage
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If opposing gay marriage is not "in and of itself bigotry" then why do everyone who is opposed to it get called a bigot?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it."

"The Commonplace Book of Thomas Jefferson: A Repertory of His Ideas on Government"
Gilbert Chinard
Johns Hopkins Press, 1926
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

In short, conservatives have become the very thing they claim to hate.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
LaSalvia deserves credit for saying aloud what should not even be necessary to say; that opposing same-sex marriage is not, in and of itself, bigotry. Unfortunately, he all but takes this back by saying that "there are a few in our movement who just don't like gay people, and in 2013 that's just not OK in America anymore."

It is not necessary to "like black people" to recognize that black people have the right to vote. It is not necessary to "like Jews" to recognize that Jews no less than Christians have the right to free exercise of religion. It is not necessary to "like" someone to work together with that person in the pursuit of a political goal which is held in common.

The very concept of a "gay community" is a recent political construct, whose roots go back a mere 120 years, and which is rooted in pseudoscience no less nonsensical than phrenology. In the late 19th century, the homosexually-inclined and partisans of the then-new pseudoscience of psychology posited that homosexual inclinations rendered certain people a "third sex"; from this came the belief that "homosexuality" was a phenomenon distinct from "heterosexuality; that as a separate phenomenon from "heterosexuality," "homosexuality" had detectable causes and could be "cured."

None of this had---or has---any scientific foundation whatsoever; these were merely assumptions, many which have become ingrained over time. The "third sex" construct had been pretty much abandoned by the end of the first quarter of the 20th century, but the assumption that "homosexuality" is a distinct phenomenon, rather than a preference which some people experience to a greater or lesser degree, has remained a persistent delusion among so-called scientists no less than the general public.

As anyone who made it through high school geometry knows, if you start with an error at the beginning of an angle you come out with a wildly inaccurate result at the end of the angle. Likewise, if you start off with erroneous pseudoscientific assumptions and proceed without examining them, your results will be wildly inaccurate. The assumption/presumption that there is a bright-line distinction between "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" has added nothing to human knowledge---has, indeed, hindered it---but has instead created an ever-malleable catchall political identity.

The "gay community" cannot define its own parameters---or, rather, redefines them constantly as political convenience dictates. A year or so ago, a "gay softball league" in the Seattle area refused to let "bisexuals" participate because they "weren't gay enough"---despite "bisexuals" being the "B" in the ubiquitous "LGBT" acronym. The attitude towards "bisexuals" in the gay-rights movement is problematic; self-described "bisexuals" are often despised or mistrusted as people who are insufficiently committed to homosexuality or lack the nerve to truly "come out"---at the same time, people who leave their heterosexual marriages or relationships are lauded as "finally having the courageto get in touch with their feelings." However, just as news reports of people who use guns to protect themselves from marauders are routinely sloughed by the media, while stories of "gun violence" are played up, the stories of people who leave the "gay community" for heterosexual relationships are seldom, if ever, recounted---though they, too, exist.

This one-sided reportage is done in the service of maintaining the foundational fiction of "the gay community"---the existence of a bright-line distinction. It is necessary to keep this fiction beyond question because without it the basis for demanding "rights"---the supposed immutability of sexual orientation---falls to pieces, and homosexual behavior devolves to a mere preference, like a penchant for blondes or redheads.

This is not to say that the sexual preferences of the homosexually-inclined are not, in many cases, overwhelming; that they should not be free to pursue these inclinations, within age-of-consent limits, without legal sanction; nor that there should not be some form of domestic-partnership legal protections for long-term relationships. It is merely to point out that these social policy determinations do not rise to the level of "rights."

By approaching these issues from a "gay identity" perspective, LaSalvia is inadvertently starting from a position staked out by a personal-relationship movement which is grounded in the equivalent of "climate-change science." It is unlikely that he realizes this, since the leftwing presumptions which constitute "gay identity" have pervaded the homosexual community for well over forty years, and to reject them would render him more ostracized than his endorsements of fiscal conservatism already have.





1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Agreed, especially on your constant changing part, which is indicative of every Leftist maneuver. It's hard to define something that is constantly changing, which is exactly what Lefties prefer. Something that is definite can be identified and effectively neutralized; not so if the target is always changing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Buzzsawmonkey is hittin' on all cylinders!

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have always been a Christian and attended a mainline Christian church until I was in my 20s. HoweverI found that the religion practiced in some Christrian churches was entirely different and was more intent on punishment rather than helping others. An elderly woman once told me "Christians give Christianity a bad name"and she was correct. The so called Christians now seem to espouse beliefs which were once considered "far out" and belonging to sects which believed in strange things. I am now an Agnostic who has little use for the Christians.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
there are some in the GOP who don't like anyone who differs from them. After years of attending GOP women's functions I can attest to that. Very few minorities or women who don't follow the esstablished pattern can be found.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't like bigots. And I really, really...don't like bullies.

I see nothing to applaud in picking on people. There is no honor in it.

Thinly veiled attempts to bully and pick on folks is not the stuff of honor. It belittles anyone who joins in, not their ridiculed targets. I don't like it when faith-based people are picked on by leftists and I openly stand in front of that.

But, that doesn't make it right for anyone to pick on anyone else. There is a line across which disagreement becomes dishonor. If someone crosses that line, I will stand in front of that as well.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
CFB, I hope that you are saying ISMW that CPAC was not wise in its decision to exclude GOProud from its conference this year. I know that SSM is a very controversial issue but IMO it is not a good hill for conservatives to die on. SSM will one day be the law of the land, IMO. It's just a matter of time. It simply is not appropriate to support policies that serve to shove the gay community back into the closet; this is where most of the American people are. Join them or reside out there in the wilderness looking in.......
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Amen to that
but even with chain around the neck of this two-headed dragon I have hard time keeping tail under control and this dragon not dog so when wags tail I do not know happy or angry sometimes
and
who know how long I need 10 foot pole to keep Lilith and her pent up passions from attempting to do her business on me so for now this ace in the hole burn away frisky demons
more latter
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All

One Trackback to “GOProud at CPAC: ‘There Are a Few in Our Movement Who Just Don’t Like Gay People’”