GOProud Expands Mission with Message: ‘We’re Truly Conservatives’
Last July, the executive director of GOProud received a letter from the American Conservative Union informing the gay Republican organization that it would not be welcome “to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.”
On Wednesday night, as conservatives were arriving in Washington from around the country for CPAC, Jimmy LaSalvia and supporters toasted the expansion of GOProud’s office.
As guests chatted in the bright basement office on C Street, which was crisply decorated with political memorabilia, LaSalvia sat down with PJM to talk about his group’s headline-making journey with the Conservative Political Action Conference that began right after the group’s founding.
“One of the first things we did was sign up for CPAC in 2010 and there was a little bit of controversy around that,” he said. “But by 2011 everyone had heard about us, and certainly last CPAC was, well, everyone knows.”
The boycott by various conservative groups in the wake of GOProud’s co-sponsorship “really turned out to be the best thing to ever happen to us,” he said.
“We were a small, smart-up organization and the attention that we got last year when people like Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump and just hundreds of — Ann Coulter — high-profile conservatives standing up for us helped to launch our organization,” LaSalvia said.
The July letter from Gregg Keller, national executive director of the ACU, invited GOProud members “to attend as individual registrants.” LaSalvia is passing on the offer.
“There are many people who are going to CPAC who are unhappy with the decision,” he said. “We’re just growing. The proof is in our success. People all over the country and across the conservative movement have stood up for us and realized that we’re an important part of the conservative movement.
“And so that’s what our focus will be on this year,” he said. “It won’t be at CPAC, but CPAC doesn’t get to decide who’s conservative and who’s not. They may think they do, but they don’t.”
Does LaSalvia consider bigotry to be behind the CPAC brush-off?
“I know that for two and a half years there were forces on the ACU board and at outside organizations that didn’t want us at CPAC because we’re gay — and for no other reason but that we’re gay,” he said. “And I know that that’s the truth, that’s the reality.”
Among the decorations in the new office was a jar into which staffers have to drop a buck if they say the words CPAC, Cleta or Log Cabin (LaSalvia and co-founder Christopher R. Barron used to work there before breaking off to found a gay Republican group further to the right). There were two dollar bills floating in the clear glass container.
Among the guests at the beer-and-wine soiree was Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist — a member of the ACU’s board of directors.
When asked about the contention of some conservatives that groups such as his push a “gay agenda,” LaSalvia said that his group’s mission is really about picking up where the right hasn’t done a great job: communicating why conservative principles are good for different constituencies.
“communicating why conservative principles are good for different constituencies”
why not– “communicating why conservative principles are good for americans”
catering to “constituencies” is a technique of the left as it must juggle the different flavor-of-the-month victim groups who wish to hog the spotlight- keeping the masquerade up long enough to get into power
if we, as americans, are unable to articulate why a free-market and less-centralized federal government is of benefit to everyone then it’s an EPIC FAIL on all of us
For me personally this is not a gay issue so much as one of naked advocacy and mainstreaming things that may have no business being mainstreamed. I don’t care if we have a gay President; I DO care if that President advocates for gays.
I don’t want major league baseball players lobbying as a group for baseball to be declared the national sport nor comic book collectors lobbying for the National Library of Congress to digitize all comic books. Let them vote as individuals and let gay folks do the same; let’s all do the same.
As white men come under increasing assault for occupying some default position of immorality in this country and as demographics shrink the white male population, should they organize and advocate for themselves? Of course not – the idea is depraved. Yet that is the lesson in front of us and we are of course the only ones to conspicuously refuse to indulge in this while taking it on the chin for somehow doing the exact opposite.
Each of us has a vote, use it as individuals and think of the common good. Has Kennedy’s quote become completely forgotten?
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” That seems to be a rather hated notion today, particularly on the political Left.
There are so few Conservatives in the official Republican Party.
As you can see from the Presidential field: There’s a RINO (Romney), a religious “nut” (Santorum), and the usual serial adulterer, usually a Democrat, (Newt). All have dallied with RINOism and Liberalism when they thought it would benefit THEM. Then there’s the guy (Paul) who is consistently unintelligable. The urge to stay home is oh so strong!
Thank God that the Democrats are truely evil as Obama has shown by bowing and scraping to one tin horn dictator after another and by working full-time to bankrupt America and eliminate any incentive to be productive. As long as we all eat dog food out of the bag of equality, the socialist nervana has arrived.
“Anybody but Obama” may win the race you. Thank God, Washington is stuck in gridlock.
Please stop with that tired reactionary distortion, & smear. Mitt Romney is THE ONLY real fiscal conservative left running. He cut taxes 19 times, & pissed off environmentalists by taking 17 million from some energy grants to help close the budget deficit. That he turned into a 2 billion surplus. THAT IS the mark of a true fiscal conservative indeed. One who has fought tooth & nail to maintain & expand our party in very hostile NE too.
He’s a poster boy for the best of American Capitalism, & the most compassionate gentlemen (and I do mean gentlemen) running.
He’s also, obviously, the only electable choice. So before throwing your arms up in defeat, & tearing down our candidates & party, perhaps you should rethink your position.
Oh, pahleease, Romney increased fees while he was governor more than any governor in history. And by closing loopholes in the tax code he nearly doubled the tax burden on small businesses. Add to that Romneycare and one begins to understand why he left office with a 35% approval rating and did not run for re-election. Let’s not forget that as governor he sign a PERMANENT ban on firearms that could be classified as assault weapons.
Nice try:
Firstly. fees & taxes are 2 different things:
Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, Romney faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year. Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion. Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes,the state ran surpluses of around $600–700 million for the last two full fiscal years Romney was in office, although it began running deficits again after that.
The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship but still was below the national average. According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8% in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3%), and 10.5% in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
I also happen to believe you’re lying, or at best deeply inflating his disapproval rating as MA Gov. His STATE HCR for example is still loved there. As I expect he still is.
VIVE ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012.
And will probably again in the primary but he will not win the general election in MA and I seriously doubt he wins any NE states.
“He’s the poster boy for the best of American Capitalism” I wish you were right, since Romney will likely be the nominee. But when the Obama destruction machine unleashes on him what we will hear is that he’s the poster boy for country club, wall street corporate, rich Repulican.
BIG problem, too, with his only foray into “job creating” capitalism – Bain Capital. Not a bad idea to study Bain since the leftist MSM will crush him over it.
Here’s an interview with a Reagan conservative venture capitalist about Bain. Quite sobering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmrEUHdwAwQ&feature=youtu.be
I have been studying Bain. It’s how it became obvious to me that Romney is both a fiscal & private sector vet & genius. Staples, Dick’s Sporting Goods, the list goes on. Romney helped more companies than were hurt, created more jobs than were lost.
This aint even counting the 50,000+ he helped create as MA Gov.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270202/romneys-jobs-record-katrina-trinko
Yes, this Romney Republican is armed with facts, & so is my candidate. He’ll have the money to fight the class warfare, socialistic, divisive, Obaaamabot smear machine. The Failure-in-Chief HAS NEVER EVEN HELD A PRIVATE SECTOR JOB. Mitt will trounce him in the debates I expect, & can’t wait.
VIVE ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012.
Some facts you aren’t including … and these articles (below) are by conservatives, not leftists. Remember, any positive spin on Bain will not be echoed by the MSM, and in my opinion Romney will lose to Obama because of it.
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10538-romneys-skeletons-his-bain-capital-received-millions-in-bailouts
http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/mitt-romney-the-bailout-king-of-american-politics/
Two people started Staples who were already very successful in the retail Supermarket business. Bain was not even the biggest VC (and I’m using this in a nice way when Bain Capital was just VC). He did a financial transaction and the company grew. With or without Bain Capital they would be successful just not as fast.
As for MA – MA was losing people fast when he was Gov as they were moving to other states. Romney ranked 47th in job creation compared to other states at the time. Now this is a problem as he is running for a government job and not a private sector job.
I agree with your religious nut criticism of Santorum, your criticism of Newt, and your criticism of Paul. But I dont agree with the Romney is a RHINO criticism. I think on most Tea Party issues, like spending restraint, regulatory reform, repeal of Obamacare, and small gov constitutionalism, I think Romney is actually pretty good. He might be a RHINO on social issues, but so am I, and so are many other Tea Partiers.
Yes Romney was a moderate/conservative in MA, but in a leftist state like MA what else could he be and still have a prayer. Basically, in MA he was exactly as conservative as he could afford to be, and still survive. If you are a RHINO in GA (like Newt), or in AZ (like McCain), there is no excuse. But it is a bit harder to be Mr Pure conservative in a state like MA. In the end any politician has to pay some attention to the wishes of his constituency, and not just idealogy. Isn’t one of the prime criticisms of Obama that he puts idealogy over the countries wishes? Since retiring from politics in MA, and entering national politics, Romney was pretty consistently conservative, especially on fiscal issues, and in fact ran against McCain in 2008 as a conservative.
THIS gay, bi racial, 26 year old, urban Republican says RIGHT ON. Screw CPAC if they don’t wanna let us in this time around. They did last time, wonder what changed, oh well.
There is a tectonic shift coming in our party. TRUST ME, our new generation, the new guard of our party is definitely NOT homophobic, bigoted, etc. I know no fellow Republican friends, my age or older, who dislike me for being gay. They’re tolerant of us, like us, want us in the trenches with em.
Soon we will take the reigns of our party, & right these wrongs that still exist. End those negatives stereotypes.
There are MANY more Republicans like me too. We’re growing in number as our gay & other minority communities begin to start refusing to march mindlessly in lockstep with the Democrats victim hood, welfare mentalities, etc.
Amen, Carlos. I’m a bit older than you and straight, but I have a good number of gay, conservative friends. There are a lot of us who absolutely do want you in the trenches with us– not in the sense of merely tolerating you, but in the sense that I welcome every good conservative voice that will help us carry forward.
I am amazed that so many gays think that their sexuality defines their political preferences; I’m dismayed that so many conservatives have that same belief.
Yea, it’s a plague on such a minority’s mentality & mindset. Like I said tho, in the near future, it’s going to change, has already started to. As was said, in 2010, the GOP got 31% of our vote in ’10.
I have many other gay conservative, Republican friends on Facebook. We’re starting to realize we’re not alone, sharing our thoughts, coming together. If we’re ever going to change the political landscape of this great nation, or change alot more, THIS is how it starts….
Thanks btw.
Is it just me, or what? All my gay friends are employed, and what’s more, ALL my friends are civilized and polite (otherwise…). That’s all I ask for “in the trenches”, too. And lately there seem to be so many well-spoken gay conservatives making themselves heard. Why should independent people vote for totalitarian statism?
We’re Proud to have you in the big tent.
Right on, sir!
I think it’s ridiculous for conservatives to denounce same-sex marriage as some threat to society–while at the same time many of them support the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, a serial adulterer who (according to his 1st mistress/2nd wife) seriously contemplated open marriage.
Which of these truly undercuts the concept of stable marriage:
1. No-fault divorce
2. Open marriage
3. Same-sex marriage
I believe that the first two are more threatening to the concept of stable marriage than the third.
I live in MA, which has had same-sex marriage for several years now. And guess what, for us straight folks, nothing has changed. I still see heterosexual couples getting married–in churches–and raising children the old-fashioned way.
I agree with you completely that no-fault divorce and open marriage has been socially detrimental. But I also think same-sex marriage, as it is presented and advocated for, shares a common feature with both of these that is the root of why they are destructive: it reinforces the concept that the most important thing in marriage is the happiness and fulfilment of those entering into it.
I hold that the most legitimate reason for the State to have an interest in marriage is not for the benefit of those who freely enter into it, but for the benefit of those who innocently result from it. Yes, there are gay couples who have children, but statistically and biologically it is miniscule. Strengthening the concept and idea of family and marriage into which the vast majority of children could be born is, I think, a noble goal.
“Soon we will take the reigns of our party, & right these wrongs that still exist.”
You already have a party, it’s the Democrat Party. Find your home there. The Republican Party — in theory — should be the party of opposition; it should oppose the Democrat, read that Marxist, Party. But alas, it does not. No wonder you’re confused.
Can I get that near minute of my life back please? You fail to make any sense really. No case for why I should be a Democrat, just a bunch of jumbled non sense. The GOP doesn’t oppose the the Democrats? They don’t oppose Obama’s agenda in the House?
LOL indeed I am confused, who wouldn’t be reading your….’point’? I couldn’t be more awake, enlightened frankly. I’m far more informed, knowledgeable, than most my age.
VIVE ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012.
Every since the ["kill a queer for Christ"] bible-crazies misappropriated the Republican Party in 1979-1980, it has been a laughing stock to many other people, especially those under the age of 50.
These nasty bible-thumpers need to form their own party, and stop destroying other people’s organizations. They corrupt and ruin everything they touch, including the [previously secular] National Right to Life Committee (they destroyed its reputation and over a decade of public relations work in a single month, thanks to the idiot Jerry Falwell), and CPAC; every bandwagon they jump on, they crash. They are not logical, they represent a small fraction of registered voters, and their superstitious gullibility doesn’t benefit anyone except a handful of greedy evangelical organizations, businesses, and preachers mooching off of them.
I agree with Carlos. The young conservatives of today will at some point take over the Republican Party and restore it to its original principles. Either that, or it will go the way of any dinosaur.
Thank you. I foresee this shift happening sometime after this election cycle. We can’t keep allowing those reactionaries, hypocritical, ‘Christian’ hate mongers, and the like to keep poisoning our party.
We love our party enough to try to save it.
How old are you two? Carlos, 16 maybe? and Florida 14?
You betray your absolute ignorance of American history with your inane and ignorant comments. Go back under your rock and stay there.
LOL I already said how old I was. Not my fault if you’re seemingly illiterate. Mad after getting called out? Then next time I advise you to refrain from making such truly ignorant, & nonsensical comments.
Have a nice day now.
Clearly, you are not a fan of gays. I suppose it’s their sexual practices you object to.
Not sure if you’re coming at this from a Christian perspective, but here’s some food for thought: We all sin on a daily basis. Some sins are worse than others, but I don’t recall anyone in the Bible ever saying that homosexuality was the worst sin. In fact, I seem to recall there are more references in the Bible to the evils of adultery (oh yeah, it’s kind one of those commandments, isn’t it?) than to homosexuality. Oh wait, actually, there are more references in the Bible to the evils of a lot of other things other than homosexuality: lying and stealing being a few others. Ever told a lie? I know I have.
Despite this, many conservatives reserve all their vitriol for those horrible gay sinners out there, while remaining considerably quieter about straights engaging in pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce. I’ve never known a parent to disown their child for having an affair, but I’ve known a few who disowned their gay children. Hmmmm…and I don’t buy this “gays and their lifestyles are bad for society” argument either. You know what’s really bad for society? Affairs, divorce, and children with absent fathers – very bad behavior from straights.
It’s time conservatives started pointing out hypocrisies among our own. The gay topic is one of many.
E2:
I have to disagree with your use of the word “many”. You — and any who think that Christianity = homophobic or conservative = homophobic are confusing the noise of the vulgar few for the voice of the majority. (Much like Code Pink or OWS is supposed to represent mainstream American opinion.)
There is a lot of shouting and confusion right now. Please remember that the people making a fuss, on both sides, are outliers. WBC = Castro Street Fair.
Darcy, I’m old enough to have been an eyewitness to the Religious Right’s destruction of the pro-life movement. As one of the original pro-life organizers in this country, I can tell you that the first Right to Life meetings were held in the offices of the ACLU in New York City. By 1978, the pro-life movement had made such strides, we, literally, were on the verge of a constitutional amendment recognizing “personhood” from the moment of fertilization. But, then, one religious fanatic in Washington, D.C. decided to get the fundamentalists involved, on the false premise that quantity was more important than quality. She arranged a pro-life presentation for some of the country’s most influential evangelical preachers.
That was the end of the real pro-life movement. When Jerry Falwell went public claiming to represent the pro-life cause, and offering financial donors “precious little feet” pins they could stick on their lapels, all credibility was lost. When the bible-crazies joined the National Right to Life Committee, and hijacked it with their votes, that was the end of its claim to influence. Whether you know it or not, fundamentalist are far more offensive than gays are to the general public.
Yes, trashy gay people are annoying, just as trashy straight people are annoying, but neither are remotely as nauseating as bible-clutching self-described Conservatives pretending to speak for Conservatism, and even more absurdly, Constitutional rights. What a joke. If the fundamentalists had their way, we’d all be stuck in church 24/7 listening to some sub-moronic redneck describing the imaginary tortures of hell.
Florida, in my area during 79-80 they were called Log Cabin Republicans.
They voted the Republican ticket and were elected to office with Republican
money as time went on. LCR another word word for RINO.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The people I’m referring to were fanatical born again Christians who hijacked the Republican Party and the pro-life movement. They weren’t openly gay. They supposedly hated gays, and supposedly still hate them. Of course, those who scream the loudest are usually the guiltiest themselves, so I assume that the religious loons who waste endless time denouncing gays and fretting over gay marriage are themselves closet homosexuals or bisexuals. Only a bisexual could think that one chooses ones sexual orientation, because only a bisexual actually gets to choose one gender or the other to pursue. Real homosexuals are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and real heterosexuals are not sexually attracted their own. Bisexuals are attracted to both.
I don’t know any Log Cabin members, but, then, I’m not involved in politics and can’t imagine anything more boring than joining a political group, gay or straight.
I supposed you were raised that way and hopefully it will end there but fear people like you infest our species as it appears you are filled with ignorance. However, I suspect here at PJM there are plenty like you who has been raised that way as well.
But it’s people like you that has turned what once was a proud party into a collection of religious weirdos, homophobic bigots, racists, and frightened old people.
Just look at CPAC and who will be attending:
Peter Brimelow, the founder and head of VDARE.com. VDARE is a White Nationalist website, run by Brimelow, which frequently publishes the works of anti-Semitic and racist writers…
Now when this is mainstream at CPAC but they deny GOProud it screams out to everyone that Republican are intolerant and reinforces their image that they are a collection of people like you.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s amazing to see such vulgar displays of contempt from so many self-described conservatives for these three fundamental concepts, at least as they apply to others.
Nobody who would engage the machinery of federal government – going so far as to amend the founding document of our nation – in an effort directed solely at depriving a specific group of American citizens the liberties the rest of us enjoy has any business calling themselves a conservative. They are big-government, all the way.
I’m a gay, libertarian-oriented conservative man. I suspect some straight people are opposed to open homosexuality because they fear the “gay agenda” will tempt their kids or even their spouses to become gay. This is a ridiculous fear. What people need to realize is that sexual orientation is not a choice, anymore than straight people “decided” to be straight. I just know that when I went through puberty, I discovered I was sexually attracted to males. There was no choice involved. I was not molested as a child. No one convinced me to be gay. I just was. Period. Gay people are at most 5% of the population. We’re not going to increase that to 10%, even if we try. I suspect the percentage of the population that is gay has been more or less constant throughout human history. I’m not conservative because I want to influence anyone sexually or turn the Republican party into a vessel for the “gay agenda”. I’m conservative because I believe in small government and maximum personal liberty. I also happen to agree with social conservatives who believe that our culture has become too coarse, vile and overly sexualized. But it is absurd to believe that gay people are a threat to society. One of my best friends is a 62 year old gay man who served in Vietnam, was seriously injured in battle, awarded a purple heart, and says he has never voted for a Democrat in his life. The sooner the Republican party accepts gay people, the sooner being gay will no longer be a political issue. And when that happens, the gay Left will no longer be able to successfully play the victim card.
I’m gay too Hayekian, & I can tell you you SERIOUSLY underestimate our population.
Of those who would openly state such in a survey, gays comprise AT LEAST 10% of the U.S. population.
You combine bi sexuals, those who are ‘curious’, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE CLOSETED, & it gets tough to estimate the TRUE % of the gay population…but I believe it’s around 20%-25%.
Beautifully said. I’m old enough to remember what happened about 30 years ago – when the Christian Right took over the Republican Party. My brother has been in politics all his life, and remembers it well too. I’m NOT against Christians!!! But I am against a religion trying to restrict the rights of a group of people legally because “it’s a sin.” Seriously, there’s something really wrong with that.
I’ve been waiting for the Republican Party to return to its roots. There are so many of us who actually feel quite strongly that “conservative” has been inappropriately hijacked by religion in the case of gay people.
ps. My dad is a pastor, so please don’t accuse me of being anti-religious.
I support your disclaimer too Mtncougar. I’m a relatively devout Christian too (YES a gay Christian is totally plausible & there are MILLIONS OF US but this is for a later debate), so no one accuse me of being a gay agenda pushing, radical Atheist either, lol.
The sooner the Republican Party becomes a Conservative, FEDERALIST party, the better. Like you, I just want the government take care of national defense and leave me alone. That should be a natural fit with gays, minorities, and the vast majority of the middle class.
Instead, we get guys like Santorum – a Democrat who loves Jesus. They go around declaring themselves “conservatives”, destroying the meaning of that word the way Democrats destroyed “liberal”.
I could have written this myself, about myself! Totaly agree.
it’s taken me years of study and deep philosophical thought to understand conservatism and to reach the conclusion that i am indeed a conservative. when you’ve understood the self-evident (philosopically consistent) precepts that define conservatism, you are a conservative, period. and there is no ambiguity whatsoever in that definition or your understanding of it. and you don’t need to arrive at it independently (as i mostly did in my ignorance). you can get the definition from reading and understanding the founders, locke, montesquieu, aristotle, etc. and at the point when realize you are “truely” a conservative, you, surprisingly, achieve liberation from reliance on all political sub-factions, and you intellectually cast off all of these, realizing them for what they are, mostly creatures of the left, of the statist, of the believers of the government as god.
so i can at least point out at a minimum that conservatism is a-factional. i.e., conservatism doesn’t deal in political factions at all. in fact, for conservatives (like madison for instance), the political power of factionalism is a problem of government needing to be forced to control itself. to limit the power of political factions is a major goal of constitutional government. they are in themselves a big problem for conservatives and the survival of conservatism.
therefore, even talking about a “gay conservative” is a non-sequitur, or oxymoron vis-a-vis conservatism; it’s as nonsensical as talking about a faction of rich conservatives, or amateur radio conservatives.
conservatism, as a system of self-evident truths, lives in the *individual,* never in any faction, whatsoever.
Conservatism is realistic, based on fundamental tenets that are not religious or gender-related — such as personal responsibility, self-reliance, and fair dealing — and realizes that people are fallible (including conservatives). Leftism, by contrast, forever chases a utopian equality of outcome that necessarily admits of no dissent.
Groups that find themselves bound in leftist chains can come to the tent thinking “gay conservative” or “black conservative” or “hispanic conservative”. It’ll dawn on ‘em eventually that few care about such distinctions. Generally happens about the same time that they get into an argument that isn’t just shouting slogans.
how often we hear that “few care about such distinctions” as being gay…and then we, for example, get singled out and tossed out of CPAC or are urged, repeatedly, to amend the constitution to ensure that gay people are kept in a second-class citizen status! i’ll believe that “few care” when we’re treated with respect and are recognized as equal under the law…that day has not yet arrived.
By constitutional amendment, I assume you mean one that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. The simple solution is to get the government out of the “marriage business.” Instead, they should only grant a license of civil union for everyone. Marriage is a spiritual bond that should be left to religious institutions. In the meantime, free speech still applies. If you want to call your partner your husband or wife, feel free.
Yes! Let’s be Federalists and get the government out of the marriage business our personal lives in general. Let’s be in favor of maximum personal and economic liberty.
“to ensure that gay people are kept in a second-class citizen status!”
FINALLY, someone admits the push for gay marriage is not about “equality” but about letting gays join a privileged class. Unmarried gays will continue to be second-class citizens, just as unmarried straights have always been.
I have just posted this in the Santorum-related article today. I think is also good to re-post it here. I don’t want to start a flame war but some discussion is needed regarding this anyway:
>
>
The ancient Greece is only society I can think of now that was completely open to the gay union. I’m not going to tell we should imitate the classical antiquity here and now, but maybe somebody (VDH?) could tell the name of those unions so we can institute the union in a legal way with a historically related name without it being “matrimony“. For instance, the Urban Dictionary defines garriage
That said, I don’t like gays, perhaps because I have known only the bad apples, who knows, but the question is I dislike them. Yet, I still think it’s not a crime to be gay. Yes, I know the Bible says it’s a major sin but: 1) not everybody believes in Bible. 2) Bible also says a liar is a major abomination and the same Bible says everybody says lies, so we are all already major sinners according to the Book.
So, policy matters and personal/Biblical views should be separated. Let every individual struggle or accept his/her own nature and live and let live. Why should gays be banned from a formal union is beyond me, it’s like banning liars from it. If liars want to form a club, what the heck has the government to do about it? And yes, liars can get married and adopt children too.
Real crimes are those that violent Rights (true rights, not leftist wishes) i.e. Life, Freedom, Pursuit of Happiness and Private Property.
I was unaware that outing people with opposing views in an attempt to destroy their reputations and livelihoods was a conservative principle…possibly because it’s not. Soviets do it, Nazis do it, Democrats and progressives (but I repeat myself) do it. I don’t want to be associated with GOProud because I don’t want to be associated with that sort of behavior.
Great column. And kuddos to GOProud!
I applaud GoProud. I have always been a little suspicious of gay rights groups, but it was more because they always sounded leftist, than that they were gay. I think there should be room in the repub party for conservative gays, and it is wrong to exclude them. From what I see of gen X and the millenials, I think attitudes toward gays are changing, and the GOP should adapt to those new attitudes. I think young people could be very receptive to a repub fiscal conservative message, because they know they will be the ones that get stuck paying the bill for our generations irresponsible spending. However they will not be receptive to that fiscal conservative message if it is coupled with anti gay fanaticism. The repub party can never have a big tent on fiscal conservatism. If you are not a fiscal conservative I dont consider you to be a repub. But if GoProud wants to make our tent a tiny bit larger on gay issues, more power to them.
By the same token, I dont think GoProud should attack any religious organization that thinks being gay is sinful. They have the right to their opinions too. It is only when they want to inflict their gay is sinful attitudes on the rest of us with public policy changes that I object. The key here is live and let live. If a religious group or a religious school refuses to hire gays, that should be their right. But if the rest of us, or the gov, wants to hire gays, and cater to gays, we have that right as well.
Basically I support the libertarian perspective, that beyond protecting people from violence, the gov should neither persecute gays, or persecute those that dont want to deal with gays.
“The gov should neither persecute gays, or [sic] persecute those that don’t want to deal with gays”
The latter half of that sentence sounds like an excuse for discrimination against gays, very similar to the excuses that white Southerners used to give for their racially-segregated lunch counters, buses, etc., etc.
That is an indefensible position in today’s world. I am straight and I want my gay friends to have the same rights that I have. That includes freedom from employment discrimination, freedom from discrimination at places of business, and the freedom to marry whomever they choose, as well as the freedom to adopt children.
Carlos, I couldn’t care less if you are gay but I just wanted to point out one little thing. In some of your posts you show your support of a Romney/Rubio ticket. Though Romney’s father was Mexican, he became a citizen of the U.S. before Mitt was born. Rubio’s parents though were still Cuban citizens when he was born. Hence he would still have the same problem as Obama in that Natural Born Citizen thing. I believe even he has mentioned this.
Other than that, he is doing great right where he is and we need more like him to help bring this country back to it’s senses.
As to the other posts, I’m not gay and I’m not religious. I’m not black and I’m not Spanish. I am a pretty conservative republican that just wants the government out of my life to the greatest extent possible. At the same time I don’t want the church to dictate to me who I can be friends with or what I can do. I’m pretty much a follower of the Do unto others rule and just want to be left alone. I’m not a criminal, and I think I live a pretty good life. I have black friends, I have Spanish friends, I have gay friends. That’s what they are, friends. If someone gives them a hard time I will defend them and I should hope they would do the same for me. To me, what we should all strive for is to be not labeled as a black friend or a gay friend, just as a friend. Anyone that wants to be a republican should be allowed. Race, color or religion should not matter. In the Service we had a saying, there is no such thing as a black Marine or a white Marine there were just some that were a darker shade of green. In other words, we were all the same, we all bled red and we all watched out for each other. I can’t think of a better way to be.
It’s sad that this needs to be said, but here goes:
Anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a natural born citizen of the U.S.
That obviously includes President Obama, who was born in Hawaii, as well as Marco Rubio, who was born in Miami.
I do like your last paragraph.
We (freedom-loving people of America) do not have time for this crap. We are being attacked on all sides by those who would enslave us and we are fighting in the trenches about who is doing who? I can only attribute those who would divide us as aiders of our enemies. The time is short people. Everyone knows this and we have got to stop fiddling before our country burns in front of our eyes.
Over the last few years, the right has been very good at excluding or eliminating potential allies.
The question is: How do you win campaigns while treating your potential allies as vermin who should be exterminated?
Mitt Romney’s Mexican father, hmmmmm…….Are the simple minded “BIRTHERS”, going to ask Romney for his birth certificate? We all know this was never about a birth certificate, if it was then these same people would be asking Romney for his. It’s about small minded people who hate African Americans and do not have the brains to review a President’s policy so they make something up. So sad, so sad.
Lets be clear none of these dullards have won a case in the “U.S. Courts”, maybe in their simple minds (if they have any) but not in our “U.S. Courts”, so unless Birthers/ Teabaggers, whatever you want to be called, win a court case, we will continue to see as dullards, liars or racist or maybe all three. Deal with that baby!