The party staged by Andrew Breitbart for GOProud — the gay Republican and conservative group — was as close to a game changer as things get and the most interesting event at CPAC by far, at least to this point — and that’s meant as no insult to CPAC. With sexy Sophie B. Hawkins singing to a boisterous, supportive crowd, the party almost obliterated in one night the conception that Republicans are anti-gay and gave the impression that young libertarians — and some not so young — are taking over the GOP. Pretty soon it may be cool to be a Republican and square to be a Democrat.
Well, maybe that’s what I wanted to see and wanted to feel, but the atmosphere was certainly there Thursday night at DC’s Eighteenth Street Lounge. People wandered the club’s corridors in wonderment at it all. No, there weren’t any leather biker studs or other accoutrements of the more outre gay scene, but there was as much acceptance of our modern world as at Democratic Party events, especially national ones of the scope of CPAC.
Does this indeed mean that libertarianism in its various strains is taking over the GOP? Again, that is possibly wishful thinking (and I wouldn’t want it to be that brand of libertarianism that seems to think the common defense can be accomplished with BB guns in someone’s garage), but there are indications across CPAC. Again, maybe this is anecdotal, but I’ve hardly heard much talk of abortion or other social issues at the conference — and when I have it seems vaguely discordant or anachronistic. Most people wanted to discuss the economy or the looming dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood. And, of course, who would be best to put Barack Obama out of office.
Okay, now I’m jealous. I’ve had a crush on Sophie B Hawkins since her first release.
Here we go again with another pro-homosexuality article in PJM, trying to provoke Conservatives and in effect destroy from within the real conservative movement.
I am a retired college professor, age 70 years, gay 70 years, Conservative 9(in the closet) 50 years. You need to get over yourself. There are plenty of Gays out here and being ignored because of the likes of you.
For those of us who can remember back that far, the 1990′s were a time of Republican unity as well, during which the annoyance of being out of power was great enough for people to be willing to overlook minor differences over social policy in the hope of retaking the White House.
At the very least, when one is out of power the opposing party is the Great Satan while other factions within one’s own party are the enemy of one’s enemy.
I predict this unity, based around economic issues, will persist until we retake power — and then we will have to deal with differences on social issues and foreign policy.
I’m a big-tent Republican, and I hope we can deal with those differences properly. And I’d like to remind my fellow-Christians that if government is allowed to enforce social values, it will almost always enforce values that we do *not* want. This will happen all the time when we do not control the federal government, and it will even happen most of the time that we do control it, because the both the government bureaucracy and the intellectual establishment are against us. (How much conservative social policy came out of the federal government during the last administration?)
So the best policy (pun intended) will be to get the government out of our lives in every respect. Once the government stops actively subsidizing sin (paying for abortions, and welfare, and blasphemous, poor-quality “art”) and its practitioners are forced to pay for it themselves, it will dry up and disappear.
Yeah, right; that day won’t come my friend. The agents of evil (commies atheists and homosexuals) won’t give you that opportunity. Beyond them, is islam and their 7th century lifestyle. Enjoy your (limited) freedoms, they won’t last long.
There are lot more gay libertarians and conservatives than you realize.
Funny, I did too until I watched a interview with her. I’ll just
leave it at that.
I didn’t say I wanted to converse with her.
The kind of flack I wished they’d gotten would be Roberta. Her voice still kills me quite softly. Not only not gay but downright depressed sometimes! Then Jerome Kern still works well for me.
Mock me as a mid-50 fuddy-duddy, but I can sing like Elvis, Englebert, Johnny (whole bunch of ‘em, Lennon, Mathis, Rivers, et. al), AndyW, RickyN, NeilD, Frankie(Sinatra, Avalon, Valli), BarryM, quite a few others. Quite talented classic karaoker, if you’re ever looking for one on a cruise, really. My repertoire would earn my ticket I’m sure. Takers?
I forgot Perry Como!
Well CPAC is libertarian. They chose Ron Paul in the straw poll last year. I’m not sure how much CPAC has to do with the GOP.
ron paul was voted in because the libertarians were there on voting day. when you hear the announcement of who won, im guessing the next day, you hear boos.
In the real world, 31 voting states out of 31 voting states stood for traditional marriage over “gay marriage.” What’s more, even Gallup admits more Americans are more prolife than ever before, in polling history.
So either this crowd swings far left and/or some PR types formed an opinion before the event.
I’m sorry but all the loud music, by Sophie B. Hawkins (a Hillary Clinton activist and 2-hit wonder from the 1990s) can’t drown out the real world. Honestly. Where are the critical thinking questions here?
The states that voted to put it in their constitutions did it years ago and in many cases the vote was close. It’s funny you quote the polls that show how more people are against abortion now but ignore the current ones, that show more people support equal marriage rights for Gay people than oppose them.
Not to rain on your parade, but: California, 2008.
Not all gays are even enthusiastic about gay marriage. My only reservation is about the motives of some of the gay marriage advocates. Andrew Sullivan, for example, I could see leading an attack on the Catholic Church unless they agree to perform gay marriages. That is my only real concern. The rest is atmospherics. I’m more concerned about gay adoption.
Its kind of strange, not one of my gay friends, who are conservatives ( I have no lefty friends
), is for “Gay Marriage”. Most think that some sort of legalized “Civil Union” might make sense for economic reasons. It seems to me, that all of this gay agenda stuff if orchestrated from outside by lefties trying to destroy our country. Lefties want what they are told they are supposed to want. That is why gays activists are beating the “Gay Marriage” drum. Think about it, what gay guy wants marriage? Its the last thing on their mind. Has anyone notice, when gay marriage is legal, you don’t see a lot of guys getting married? Just like DADT, how many lefty gays actually want to be in the military. The gays I know who served, were willing to keep their mouth shut for the privilege of serving. The leftie plantation masters know this. Otherwise it would not be on the agenda. The last thing that the left wants, is for gays to join the military where they might end up as Republican voting conservatives, or setting up a monogamous house hold, where the need for stability tends to fosters conservatism.
I agree with you that not all gays are for “gay marriage” which makes some of GOProud’s leaders more left leaning than mainstream Americans (gay or straight).
Diana: Prop 8 passed about 52-48%, so around a 4% margin of victory. Eight years earlier Prop 22 (exactly the same as Prop 8 except it was an amendment to the Code, not the Constitution) passed 61-39%, so support for gay marrigage grew about 9% in eight years. In another 10 years, support for gay marriage will be the majority position in California.
There were many state constitutional reasons that made Prop 8 bad law even if the intent was good. I suspect a differently structured gay marriage proposition could pass in CA.
I absolutely agree that the trend is toward increased support for same sex marriage or civil unions. We won’t soon reach the point that one or the other will exist in every state, but the number of states with one or the other will grow every year. Everyone with a partner needs a relatively simple way to make sure inheritance rights and medical decisions rights exist. It does not shake the foundation of society.
Prop 8 was voted in during an election where the conservative base was demoralized and every lefty, closeted or not, showed up at the polls in order to “be the change we are waiting for.” Hopefully “the young” will eventually be mugged by reality and understand that when you “fundamentally transform” (i.e., destroy) the basic building block of society, society changes for the worse. For proof for those still in the dark on this issue, just take a walk around our inner cities where marriage no longer exists and fathers are figments of their children’s imaginations. To keep it real, take that walk after dark.
While I certainly can find a lot of common ground with gays (e.g., the need to destroy the jihadis), “gay marriage” is not something I will ever support. I guess that makes me a homophobe.
What about the notion that only queers be allowed to marry?
Sean,
I understand your desire to validate the increase of approval for homosexual marriage in America, but the reality is it doesn’t matter if 99% of Americans decide to approve it. There are moral truths that don’t originate from us but rather outside us (ie, from God), and they will never change. Homosexual behavior, just as adulturous behavior, lying. murder, etc., will ALWAYS be wrong, regardless of what any particular society may conclude about it. That will never change, no matter how many polls you take. Though you may not accept that, it won’t change the truth of the matter. The sooner you come to realize that is so, the better for all of us, including homosexuals. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their behavior is wrong, just as does the adulterer, liar, or muderer. Let us not as a society condone such behavior. This truth does not denigrate the value of any human being, whether homosexual or adulterer, liar, or murderer, for we are all created in the image of God, and for that reason alone every human has inherent worth. But it also is no reason to validate a behavior that is abhorrent to our Creator, and one which will ultimately be condemned if not turned from.
And the rest of the story is that anti same sex marriage BHO was elected! What is your point.
Social cons should get their noses out of other peoples bedrooms. They should get with the program and help save the country from going bankrupt. When that is achieved, they can go back to peddling their religious believes.
The social pathologies supported by “libertarians” are not budget neutral but are in fact at the root of not only the budget deficit but also of the expanding government.
If the members of GOProud are campaigning for gay marriage, gay adoptions, and the rest of the gay agenda then they are anethema to conservatism and limited government.
I couldn’t care less what adults do in their bedrooms but when they want to remove the very foundation stones of our society, yeah I have a big problem w/ that.
BTW, leave your religious bigotry at the door.
Amen to that. Libertarians like to think they are so broad-minded when it comes to social issues but never think about the unintended consequences. People like to argue that what someone does in the bedroom should have no baring in politics. So fine, but don’t expect the public to pay for AIDS research and medical care nor pay for treatment of any other STDs that come with engaging in certain sexual behaviors.
Conservatives understand that the actions of every individual effects the society as a whole.
I’m assuming that you then oppose money being spent on type II diabetes and the other illness that are due to Americans being overweight. As they are a result of a poor lifestyle choice.
Actually, yes. But that simply won’t happen, any more than funds for research on AIDS will be.
FTFY. Spend all the money you want, as long as you aren’t sending government thugs to steal it for you. Or you could try stealing for yourself, but that might not be safe….
If either you or your friend above actually knew what a Libertarian is, you’d know we do not think any healthcare related expense or research with the exception of the military and veterans is ANY of the government’s business.
Next time, read up on the positions of those you choose to attack rather than just making them up.
I’m very aware of the libertarian philosophy. It is you who doesn’t understand the conservative philosophy that the basic foundation of a healthy society is the family, meaning a father, mother and children. When the family is broken down, society as a whole suffers.
Reply to Nancy below:
1. You claim to understand Libertarian philosophy, so I must assume that your previous point was a deliberate misrepresentation.
2. You confuse society with government (don’t worry, all statists do). Please point out anywhere in the Constitution that makes protecting “the family” part of the government’s mandate? Despite the “it takes a village philosophy” you seem to agree with Hillary about, the way to protect the family is through example, it is not deli-gable to the state.
don’t expect the public to pay for AIDS research and medical care nor pay for treatment of any other STDs that come with engaging in certain sexual behaviors.
Bit of a non sequitur, Nancy. Since when do pair-bonding and lifetime commitment lead to STDs? Surely gay marriage would relieve these diseases, not exacerbate them.
You’re assuming that gay marriage is strictly monogamous. It often isn’t. I’d like to know the statistics of divorce among recently married gays.
I went out for lunch recently with an old friend I hadn’t seen in awhile. He was “married” to a gay man a few years ago and divorced less than a year later. The guy, much younger than my friend, got the car. My friend’s now living with his partner who, he confided to me, he’d rather not be with anymore. When I asked if he could just tell his partner that he’d prefer him to move out of his condo, he said he was afraid to because his partner has a real temper.
Monogamy isn’t “natural” to the gay libido or lifestyle. That’s not a value judgment but an observation — not just mine but that of countless men active in the gay lifestyle. Multiple partners, sometimes in one night, is the norm.
What DRIVEL, “JL.” Your ’60′s-induced do-your-own-thing imagined notion of libertarianism is more related to Leftists than to ANYTHING related to the GOP – much less conservatism.
Your rambling, as brief as it is, merely displays the naivete (so desired by Country Club Republicans as well as aforementioned Leftists) of the REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCE of this divide-and-conquer motion of the homosexual agenda crowd:
“Just add a few Big Government/Spending folks into the Fiscal Conservatives, add a few Homosexual Agenda folks to the Social Conservatives, and maybe even some ANSWER/Code Pink folks to the Security Conservatives…and we’ll just have a bigger tent!”
Well, in one sense, yes: a bigger tent of DEMOCRATS.
It is up to GOProud and other homosexuals to prove their allegiance to Conservativism – NOT the other way around.
I call BS. I have long contended that the hipster anti-Christian vibe that exudes from so many libertarian-leaning folks has done more to poison fiscal conservatism than anything else. The left has long wooed would-be fiscal allies with the line that “you’re like us, better and smarter than those stupid, mouth-breathing creationist anti-abortion rights Jesuslanders.” Despite all the sensational warnings of a looming Christian theocracy I’ve yet to see evidence of such.
And, for the record, the pro-life position has nothing to do with what folks do in the bedroom. It is only concerned with folks’ responsibilities in the wake of the possible repurcussions of what they did in the bedroom (or car, or kitchen, or …). While many pro-life people are motivated in that regard by their religious convictions, there are many who see the issue as fundamentally one of competing rights (specifically, the host mother’s right to self-determination and the developing child’s right to exist and live) and when and under which circumstances one’s supercedes the others.
JL:
I’ve studied sociology and American Christians pull their weight. They give more blood, donate more money and do more voluntary work etc. saving the state (and therefore taxpayers billions).
I’m not American and I don’t attend church but this is a statement of fact not fiction. I’d encourage you to read, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”
The media should be praising these social conservatives as opposed to slandering them. Most don’t care what happens in their neighbor’s bedroom, but they’re sick of paying for expensive social experiments.
Mmm, isn’t someone who wants to keep their noses out of neighbors bedrooms but doesn’t want to pay for social experiments a fiscal conservative and not a social conservative, almost by definition?
Or are you referring to people who do want to interfere in other people’s bedrooms but have a financial rationalization for why they should?
As a conservative I have absolutely NO interest in what ANYBODY does in their bedroom. Problem is Gays keep insisting on pointing out what goes on in their bedrooms. The only difference between a straight from a gay is who they have sex with. This somehow makes them “special”. I do not ask anyone who they have sex with I DO NOT CARE, nor do I care what others believe as far as religion or morals. I have the right to judge by their behavior who I want to associate with. Behavior I can see, not what is said. Therefore bedroom behavior I do not judge. There are lots of people with lots of behaviors I avoid. Makes life easier and a lot less drama filled.
Agreed. I know some folks who like to have sex with sheep…but they don’t get a parade saluting them or wear little funny ribbons on their clothes either.
Marriages aren’t performed in bedrooms neither are abortions. Not sure what your point is.
By the same token, homosexuals should keep their perversion in their bedrooms. Nobody else is interested in it, nobody wants to hear about it. But Breitbart and co aren’t doing that, are they? They’re the ones who made a public issue of it, now they expect everybody to approve. Screw them. Wait – I didn’t mean…
Once the queers get mainstreamed the push will be for lowering the age of consent, lower and lower and lower.
Why would any Republican who I date? Don’t we believe in personal freedom?
Why would any Republican who I date?
Sounds like you found some pretty wild Republicans. Have you hooked up with Chris Lee yet?
That poor man is being persecuted solely because of his heterosexual orientation.
Heterophobes, I say. We are a party of heterophobes.
If only we were like the Democrats. Then we’d let people sleep with whomever they want. Just like they do with Barney Frank. Why, they even let him sleep with those looting our children via federally backed mortgage scams.
Shame!
Excellent point.
Sounds like a CPAC party that would be fun…..but I’m certainly not that interested in listening to Paul-bots banging on Conservatives, be they fiscal or social or both. Ron’s rude bots need to grow t.h. up!
Roger, did Sophie B. Hawkins sing “Damn I Wish I was Your Lover” or her pro Hillary Clinton version, “Damn We Wish You Were President”. I’m sure that would have brought the house down.
How did your Libertarians react to Dick Cheney?
To quote one self proclaimed Libertarian, Justin Bradfield.
“Uh, Defender of the Constitution?” Justin Bradfield of Maryland scoffed when I caught up with him after he walked out of Rumsfeld’s speech. “Let’s see: he expanded the Defense Department more than pretty much any other defense secretary and he enforced the Patriot Act.”
“[Speaking] as a libertarian, that’s not really the type of person who should be getting Defender of the Constitution,” he added.
Bradfield said the moment showed that “half” of CPAC this year is libertarian, which means his side is winning in the civil war between “libertarians and right-wing conservatives.”
So your position is that the social conservatives are losing the culture wars. I’ll believe it when Rick Santorum agrees with you on abortions and gays. Till then I won’t hold my breath.
I sure Cheney would have been welcome.
As would his daughters.
All of them.
There should be enough room in the tent for both camps. That way an open and honest discussion can take place and hopefully generate understanding on all sides. If we can do that without tossing around slurs against each other (homo – homophobe), we will be light years ahead of the Left.
Another reason to distance oneself from Republicans. Why introduce discordant, minor issues into the major, serious cause of trying to preserve a constitutional republic? There may be conservative pedophiles out there too (from among the priests, etc), but is it necessary to have a party for them?
Well, if we can tolerate counsin poking southerners, I’d say we can tolerate responsible gays who want to have their own strong families.
What? Was that offensive to you?
I’m so sick of you bigots! Why is it ok to denigrate an entire region of people? I guess it’s not good enough for you people to make sure they are in economic poverty for the rest of eternity, you have to belittle them too?
Lolly,
The bigotry justifies the mistreatment.
That is a bald faced lie. You just justified hatred and bigotry yourself. How many people have YOU lynched today?
Lolly,
Sorry. I’m agreeing with you.
The RINO Yankee snob uses his bigotry to justfy his mistreatment of the Southerner.
My apologies to you. I have a lot of family in the south and am sick of the sterotypes and was over-sensitive. In re-reading your comment I see that you where saying that people bigotted towards the south use that bigotry to justify their abuse of those people.
Again – my apologies!
Ted, I can tell you from experience, irony and sarcasm are beyond some people.
“Tolerate pedophiles”? There are sexual misfits regardless of party. John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Christopher Lee, etc. What’s your point?
Considering how fast Lee resigned for inappropriate behavior involving adult women, how much do you think we’d tolerate child molesters?
Considering how long Mark Sanders, David Vitter, Larry Craig, and Newt Gingrinch held onto office despite their scandals, the Christopher Lee resignation doesn’t say much at all.
I’d suggest we forget about these scandals — both sides have them and they seem to say more about the ego, hypocrisy, and sanctimony of those who hold high office than they do about either ideology.
This is a most important point. Thank you. BTW, one way the Dem-Socialists use the homosexuals is as a distraction from what the Progressives are doing to destroy America.
whatever this event represents in terms of libertarian ascendancy and the social/political acceptance of homosexuality on the political right is helpful not to forget the collapse of most of the other institutional, political, economic and societal contracts that enabled America to function. It reminds me of that scene in the Titanic movie where the steerage passengers finally breakout on to the boast deck only to find that all the lifeboats are gone. It is also helpful to study decadent/collapsing societies to see how many emerged into a new dawn of human dignity and self-determination. In the meantime enjoy the party.
Very apt simile on “Titanic”.
And I defy anyone to identify a “decadent/collapsing societ[y] to see how many emerged into a new dawn of human dignity and self-determination”.
Wonderful and apropos imagery.
It’s been a while since I read the texts of arguments against women voting, but I recall that’s about how they sounded. Doom! Collapse! The natural order overturned! God’s will defied!
Isn’t that about where we are at?
The Nanny State phenomenon is largely a product of the female voter. Does this mean women should lose the franchise? Of course not. But it also shows that some of those concerns you brush aside as baseless alarmism did, in fact, have a degree of truth to them. Let’s not pretend that restructuring marriage — the kernel of the family unit — won’t bear implications of its own for the future.
You miss the point, Miss Anthropy. It was not the pattern of women’s votes, but the sheer FACT of women voting that had our ancestors shrieking about moral collapse and the decay of Western civilization. Are anti-gay doomsayers their intellectual descendants?
“Pretty soon it may be cool to be a Republican and square to be a Democrat.”
Conservatives, real conservatives, don’t have to worry about being “cool.” Let the children in high school worry about being cool. I’m happy being an adult conservative. If you want to be a conservative too, swell. If not, there are plenty of other options available to you out there. People should be embracing conservative values. We shouldn’t have to “sell” it in any way, shape, or form. We should just say, “This is what we stand for and if you like it, great. If not, it’s your loss.” I’m tired of always having to say what an “open tent” we are. The Democrats really have a big tent too, and look what it has done to this country. Ronald Reagan did not have to “sell” conservatism. You either believed or you did not. After four years of Obama, I think the American public is ready to believe again, without this “cool” nonsense.
Well said, Libetyship. I understand Roger and Andrew’s point and it is a good one. The problem is this: The “cool” crowd isn’t about gay rights or women’s rights or abortion rights. Why do I say that? Because if you get into a discussion with these very same people about Muslims and sharia they immediately throw the gays and women under the bus. We’ve all heard them do this: They will be talking of how fearful they are of Christian extremists and their ability to drive politics and then two seconds later scoff at the “bigoted” concerns of Islam’s well known quest for a world-wide caliphate with sharia law. Why? Because it is not about convictions, it is about cool.
I’d agree with Roger and Andrew, but the “left” clearly has the ability to turn what is cool or uncool in just a matter of weeks: Note Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck,I could go on and on. It’s like the kids in elemetary school deciding someone or something has cooties. There are no convictions behind it, you just pick your target, freeze it and scream, “COOTIES”. The kids will all play along. It works everytime.
My point is, it doesn’t matter if Andrew makes a big show of including gays. It will change nothing.
Right now, the target to be made uncool is libertarians. Go to any lefty blog with comments and you can see it has begun. Soon you will be as embarassed to call yourself a libertarian as you are to call yourself a tea-partier or Christian.
Andrew thinks he’s helping. But he is not. He is just introducing minor differences that will divide and conquer. Very, very stupid.
Right now, the target to be made uncool is libertarians. Go to any lefty blog with comments and you can see it has begun. Soon you will be as embarassed to call yourself a libertarian as you are to call yourself a tea-partier or Christian.
Speak for yourself, Becky.
Of course the left is attacking Libertarians, as Regan said, “Libertarianism is the sole of conservatism,” and it appeals to the secular young because it is based on logic and equal protection under the law rather than religious dogma.
Libertarianism is the future and the stateists on both the left and the right are scared stiff by it.
This is not to be confused by the “Libertarian Party” that abandons government’s primary role of defense, but the true philosophy of libertarianism that recognizes the nation must first be secure before the rights of the individual can be.
Well okay. But that’s not really my point. My point is that if they are successful as making the term libertarian as frightening as they have made Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or Tea Party then that hurts the discussion in the same way that they made it impossible to talk about problems in the welfare community by stopping the converstaion with the word “racist”. Go ahead and flip me off, Charlie. It’s not you and me they are targeting in this battle. It is the same people Andrew and Simon are hoping to court with cool.
And no, they aren’t going after the “Libertarian Party” of old that we all chuckle at, they are going after the word “libertarian” as we mean it today. Mark my words. Look how quickly they turned grandma attending grass roots tea parties into a crazed threat to national security. They need to shut down the conversation so that, again the same people Roger and Andrew hope to court with “cool” will be too timid to get on board. They can, will and are doing it. That’s what they do and they do it well.
Nor does it change my point that making social issues that are naturally divisive such as gay marriage and abortion a stupid play.
One attack I thought was particularly ironic was a television show my wife likes, “Criminal Minds,” the story of federal agents jetting around the country in a slick little FBI jet like caped crusaders to the rescue.
Anyway, the one episode I tried to watch was the team’s infiltration of a fundamentalist Christian cult modeled directly after the Branch Davidians. . . except this bunch called themselves, “The Libertarians,” unbeleivable.
Very interesting. Just remind people power corrupts.
Yep. You said it.
I welcome anyone who will work with me to stop the increase of government intrusion into our lives. I will work with anyone who can stop our slide into becoming a debtor nation. Anyone.
During my work for the Worcester Tea Party I have been called every hurtful name that you can think of. Let us leave the angry shouting of insults to those that we oppose, frankly they are better at it than we are.
The NRA and California Rifle and Pistol Association brought a lesbian to the legislature to promote concealed carry of handguns in public. Old Media had a fit, because they couldn’t write vitriol about gun bubbas testifying in bib overalls and plaid shirts. The politburo…I mean California legislature…had a collective diaper wetting because they were confronted with their hypocrisy. First, they claim to support gay rights because that’s what liberals are supposed to do. But NRA/CRPA forced them to go on record against gays’ civil right of self-defense. A beautiful piece of grass roots maneuvering in the ongoing war against socialism.
Interesting. Would you welcome the Klan’s support?
As much as I’d welcome the NAACP, The CBC, NAN, La Raza, the SCLC or any other group of social “hemorrhoids”.
As much as I’d welcome the NAACP, the CBC, La Raza, NAN, SCLC or the Rainbow Coalition…all hemorrhoids of society.
I applaud those conservatives who are trying to practice true inclusion of anyone who supports conservative principles, rather than staking out a “no homos need apply” rationalization of exclusion based on what should be a private matter when it involves adults.
The truth of the matter is that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid nor demand recognition of gay marriage. Which should leave it up to the individual States to decide.
Trying to use the Feds to either blanket permit or blanket ban gay unions is to NOT be a conservative for limited Government.
If you want Gay marriage banned, start a Constitutional amendment process. If you win, fine, if you lose, whatever. But respect the electoral decisions of your fellow Americans in other States that choose to allow gay unions.
If you don’t you aren’t any better than any big government liberal.
“If you win, fine, if you lose, whatever. “B/i>
And how many times have Californians voted against it? Only to have the very will of the peoples vote overturned and negated by some creep in a black robe? And the last robe who should have recused himself was…guess what? Yup….gay. No problems with that “judicial act” was there?
“creep in black robe”. Well if that doesn’t prove once and for all the utter vile CONTEMPT Republicans hold our judiciary in, nothing will.
You need to educate yourself on the difference between a federal level Constitutional Amendment, a state level Constitutional Amendment and a Statute. You show a profound ignorance on the subject.
It just seems this was an experiment with a definite result of never again.
The Heritage Foundation, Sen DeMint etc. have genuine overarching achievements on all fronts of the battles for our republic. Goproud instead of being thankful & gracious for being invited is instead behaving like a bunch of drunken teeenagers gatecrashing a wedding & vomting on the invitees. What are their accomplishments exactly? Why aren’t they different then any other single issue special interest group.Has anybody heard LaSalvia ever mention the Constitution,the budget deficit,over-regulation,judicial activism…
Up until now I supported them but ifI have to choose between Heritage & Demint who are genuinely had the most impact on fiscal conservatives who are traditional or a bunch of “cool” do-nothing loudmouths then I’d rather be square and uncool
Sorry fella, but among many other things that suck about political gamesmanship is that, as long as GOPROUD & other minority groups need to distinguish themselves from the mainstream CPAC & GOP by making an issue of their particular affiliation, they probably won’t be very well accepted. To me, the gay issue has no place in the arena politic. So to come waltzing in under the banner of “I’m gay, I vote & I’m conservative” ain’t gonna gain acceptance by many. If the gay community wishes to join in for truly conservative values then all that needs to be done for their introduction is to make the proclamation that I’m a conservative voter & here’s my money to support the conservative platform.
Conservatives, real conservatives, don’t have to worry about being “cool.”
Perhaps they don’t worry about being copol but they should worry abut being seen as cool. If you aren’t then brace for twenty years of defeats, twenty years of Obama-likes in the WH.
As I said above, the conservatives will never get the “cool” vote. If Sarah Palin had been a democrat, she would have been cool. They can make anything cool or uncool within a matter of weeks. The tea party was pretty cool. Within weeks, NOT! My gosh, they made Al Gore and Michael Moore cool. That is impressive.
Going for the cool vote, is like going for the youth vote. Everyone thinks you need it and it never, ever, comes through.
The Dems are far better chess players. They don’t go to Montana and set up a circus tent to highlight how cool they are about gun control. They win the election talking about corn subsidies and then move on gun control once they have some power.
I love Roger Simon and Andrew B. The two have moved mountains. But all Andrew did this time was create a distraction to the main event and created division in his own ranks. Bad move.
Why so much fuss about 2 per cent of the population? Live and let live.
Because their perversion is being mainstreamed into the schools, including the primary grades.
SGT. Ted is correct. What someone’s private conduct is is his/her own business. Religious precepts are not the purview of federal government.
Though not my own preference, a particular State has the right to recognize gays in marriage. Neither do I have a problem with other States not recognizing those arrangements. Contractual civil unions resolve most issues.
Marriage is an institution designed for the creation of a stable environment for the propagation and rearing of children, and ultimately to provide resources for the retirement years of both partners. Conservatives generally don’t want to mess with that understanding.
Conservatives want to focus on constitutional limits, fiscal, and defense issues primarily. Anyone who wants to help in those areas should be welcome. Bedroom activities have virtually nothing to do with those activities.
We should just say, “This is what we stand for and if you like it, great. If not, it’s your loss.”
Sadly, Libertyship46, it is the uninformed and soft headed middle that determines elections. The only way the left, with their provably bad policies and consistently amoral leadership, ever gains national ascendancy is to sell hard to the insecure and uninformed. Why should we cede that voting bloc without a fight?
Libertyship’s plan will work better at getting the moveable middle.
An enthused base is how you defeat the MSM’s effort to sway the Middle to the Left. An unenthused base means Obama crushes McCain.
Your theory is based on two wrong ideas about how politics works as a practical matter.
So to come waltzing in under the banner of “I’m gay, I vote & I’m conservative” ain’t gonna gain acceptance by many. If the gay community wishes to join in for truly conservative values then all that needs to be done for their introduction is to make the proclamation that I’m a conservative voter & here’s my money to support the conservative platform.
Which conservative, Constitutionally minded value is it that says that individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness is for every responsible adult except homosexuals?
You have every right to the pursuit of happiness but it is nowhere said that the state must bend backwards to make you happy. And not with my money.
Marriage exists for one reason: children. That is why the state/society steps in. And that is why couples asked for it stepping in. Women because getting pregnant could mean starving to death. Men because they wanted guarantees against not working to feed children who were of other men. Entourage because when an unmarried woman got pregnant either they had to tighten belt in order to feed mother and child or see the child die from starvation And society because children are essential for its preservation. Another reason for statet/society meddling in heterosexual unions was protecting the rights of the (future) children until they were grown up enough to do it by themselves. That is why, because marriage exists because of children, neither Sparta nor those Roman emperors who were openly gay and lived with their male lovers ever had a gay marriage
So no children, no reason for marriage and no legitimacy for the state to spend my money on something who is entirely a private matter: you are not going to have the fireman who in twenty years will put out the fire in my house.
So live with whoever you want and send you my best wishes of happiness. IF someione harass you not only I think the state should do its utmost to protect you but I wish I could assist you against the aggressor. Make private ceremonies if that makes you happy, no objection here, but if a single cent of my taxes is spent on what is a purely private matter I would consider it armed robbery.
So no children, no reason for marriage and no legitimacy for the state to spend my money on something who is entirely a private matter: you are not going to have the fireman who in twenty years will put out the fire in my house.
Reaaly? If two homos get married, and don’t have kids, a straight couple won’t get married AND have kids? Is there a limit on committed relationships and gays are taking an unfair share?
What if the gays adopt a kid and he becomes a firefighter? Will you refuse his attempt to rescue your burning house?
I actually know a firefighter whose parents are gay.
Your argument is silly.
Gay marriage is a cover to get sexual perversion legitimized to teach in the primary grades. Hardly an issue of “what they do in private is their own matter.”
When it comes to the gay agenda, government regulation of business trumps conservatism for GOProud.
A link to their own website. http://www.goproud.org/goproud-supports-domestic-….
Be sure to check out the co-sponsors GOProud joined with to pass the legislation. It includes the ACLU and SEIU. I thought GOProud was a fiscal conservative organization?
You left out polygamists, polyandrous, the incestuous, etc.
The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC is a watershed event. It marks the attempted destruction of the Reagan conservative coalition by David Keene, Grover Norquist, and Andrew Breitbart. We can safely assume now that Roger L. Simons supports the destruction of that coalition as well.
The whole inclusion of GOProud is a farce because they are not a conservative organization. They are liberal on most social issues. They are liberal on fiscal conservative issues. And they have adopted positions determental to our national security. Although they claim repeatedly to be conservative and to support conservative positions, there record says otherwise.
Here are some links to their own website about their support of liberal, big government causes.
1. When it comes to the gay agenda, government regulation of business trumps conservatism for GOProud.
A link to their own website. http://www.goproud.org/goproud-supports-domestic-….
Be sure to check out the co-sponsors GOProud joined with to pass the legislation. It includes the ACLU and SEIU. I thought GOProud was a fiscal conservative organization?
2. Fiscal Conservative issues on which GOProud has not taken a stand or completely ignored: earmarks, public unions and pensions, union issues like secret ballot and right to work legislation
National Security issues on which GOProud has not taken a stand or has completely ignored: Start Treaty
On other issues, GOProud has actually supported the AFL-CIO and other labor organizations. GOProud supported the repeal of DADT by the Democratic controled lame duck Congress. How did that improve national security?
I thought GOProud had solid fiscal conservative and national security credentials? Why again are they at CPAC? Or does CPAC now support the positions of GOProud?
Please note that this is not an exhaustive list. Simply a list of issues that have come up since the lame duck session.
3. GOProud has made a habit of attacking social conservatives. CPAC and the Breitbart sites have given them a forum. To date GOProud has attacked Jim Demint, the Family Research Council, and now Governor Pawlenty and The Heritage Foundation. GOProud did not simply challenge their positions, it accused them of being liberal big government types. Grover Norquist recently called groups like The Heritage Foundation a bunch of losers. Why do you complain about people not getting along when it is the people you want us to accept who are attacking us?
Does GOProud really have the credentials to be a conservative group? Why should a relatively new and socially liberal organization be allowed to attack social conservatives who formed the origninal Reagan conservative coalition?
http://www.redstate.com/dryun/2011/02/07/goproud-...
A challenge to Roger: We know they are a gay organization. Please demonstrate where they are a conservative organization. I know they repeatedly say so but their actions demonstrate the opposite.
“The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC…”
When was the Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC? Please give details and links. I didnt know this and would be VERY shocking if true. Thanks.
Here are two links to articles that detail the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood, the ACU (Grover Norquist), and CPAC. One is from RedState and two are from PajamasMedia.
http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/02/07/the-muslim-brotherhood-and-the-acu/
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/01/24/why-does-the-acu-welcome-suhail-khan/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/grover-norquists-call-for-retreat-from-afghanistan/
The inclusion of GOProud and the Muslim Brotherhood
I think it would be really enlightening for Grover to sponsor a conference featuring just his gay friends and his Muslim friends.
Seriously.
I called for our troops to leave Afghanistan, just as Grover did. I don’t think it damages anybody’s conservative credentials to say “fight the war with rules of engagement that give you a tactical advantage or get out.” the issue for me in Afghanistan, just as it is in Iraq, is we are spending blood and treasure and our enemies are just waiting across the border regions to return. The fact that an entire village turned out for the stoning of a young man and woman and our CIA seemingly didn’t know and they invited the media in to watch is amazing ten years after we began spilling blood there. We should carpet bomb everything and go.
As for the party, it’s great that there was a good time gad by those who went. I like that young people are becoming more and more involved at the grass roots. I think Donald Trump’s day has come and gone, but good for everyone that was able to network at CPAC.
There are some self-appointed guardians of conservatism here. I’m not sure what you’d like to debate. How pure a conservative does one have to be to call himself conservative? 80%, 50%, what is the magic number of issues one must think conservatively on before one is allowed to use the term? So silly and pedantic.
Politics should be fun. It is for me, I’m more conservative than some of the conservative icons, and I’m an evil, sinful gay. Oh my! Calm down a little and the movement will go far. Remain uptight and you’ll be eclipsed by another group quite quickie.
Hey Steve,
I’m having fun. Expose a libertarian to truth is just like exposing a vampire to sunlight. Most entertaining.
And your claim that 2% of the population (most of whom are die-hard liberals) are going to overturn the will of the majority of the people on both sides of the aisle is also pretty amusing too.
Remember, we on the Right just want you to get right with God, those on the Left are willing to toss you to the jihadi to save themselves, or to call you faggots because you don’t vote liberal. Just like with American Jews, your best friend in politics is a hardcore Christian rightwinger because he believes you too are a Person. But it is also kinda funny to see gays kissing up to lefty people who would toss them off the troika with a sneering perjorative, and a laugh.
I agree 100% re Afghanistan and the insane rules of engagement. The ideal thing would be promise to destroy them utterly if they ever cooperated with our enemies again and be prepared to keep the promise.
The whole damned region isn’t worth the arm or leg of one of our servicemen.
Take a look at the links. They have little to do with Norquist position on Afghanistan. Instead they focus upon the Muslims he has chosen to surround himself with and bring to CPAC. Many have demonstrable connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Here you go: http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2011/02/11/cpacs-muslims-for-america-supports-muslim-brotherhood-associated-groups/
I am sure the libertarians will only be too happy to do to the Republican Party what they did to their own Libertarian Party. When the Republican numbers reached the meteoric heights of the Libertarian Party, I am sure we will all join Roger in remembering this watershed moment.
Of course, the GOP reached it’s size by becoming nothing more than Democrat lite.
Some think it’s better to stand for principle when it comes to directing the nation rather than treating like a tetherball game where “winning” is all that counts.
The numbers who stood by Libertarian principles must have been small then. Otherwise, why would they need to hijack the Reagan conservative movement and the Republican Party.
I’m with you on this, Roger. Where is it written that conservatives must be dour? Bring on the gaiety! But don’t do it at the expense of getting the important work done too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM1DgihKHVI
A special interest group that defines itself ONLY (and GOPROUD has been quite explicit that they exist only for gay issues) by what its members do with their genitalia is NOT conservative.
GoPROUD does not belong at CPAC. Individual gays who believe in the Constitution, traditional marriage, government frugality, a strong national defense etc should be welcome.
Okay then, how about an organization that defines itself by the ages of its members? 60 Plus Association, Youth for Western Civilization, the Association of Mature Americans, Young Americans for Freedom, Young Americans for Liberty?
Or how about an organization that defines itself by the gender of its members? Independent Women’s Forum? Smart Girl Politics?
Want to boot out the Indian American Conservative Council?
Unfortunately this does nothing to get past the main hurdle, which is that the concept of “gay rights” means radically different things to modern conservatives and to liberals.
To conservatives, “gay rights” are the same rights all Americans have, no more and no less. Gay orientation doesn’t earn anyone special privileges. To liberals, support of “gay rights” means pandering to the activist agenda of yet one more in a long list of special interest groups, with the goal of manufacturing a reliable block which can be appeased or bribed for votes.
These two approaches are irreconcilable, no matter who sings at the party.
I think you have hit the nail on the head, Tom.
Gay conservatives’ agenda is equal rights for gays. Gay liberals’ agenda is special treatment for gays.
And what many conservatives are saying is that redefinition of marriage is special treatment for gays.
Unfortunately, social issues will have to be addressed at some point, both in the Republican party and in society at large. When a large and necessary part of your party views homosexual marriage as not only morally wrong, but detrimental to society in general, it is not wise to isolate them. And while many who hold this view do not wish to actively ‘legislate morality,’ neither do they enjoy being told that they need to attend the party and celebrate while they’re there.
I dont think social conservatives should be thrown out of the repub party, but I dont think that libertarians should be thrown out either. Let each group have their own place in the party, while sharing the common issues the Tea Party has identified, less spending, less taxes, less gov, gun rights, strong defense, and respect for the constitution and the founders. On those issues both standard conservatives and libertatrians agree, and if 2010 is any guide, so does the rest of the country.
Trying to have repub party governance with just social conservatism, gave us the disaster of the Bush years, and handed the country completely over to the dems. A repub based on a stable conservative/libertarian coalition, as embodied now in the Tea Party. will lead to a long term winning cooalition.
You folks JUST DON’T GET IT, DO YOU? America doesn’t need this bunch. Long live the Constitution Party. I’m done with the Repukes. I’ve BEEN done with the Demon-rats. If you are SO stupid that you can’t figure out what nature itself tells you (that man and woman are meant together and anything else is perverse), then you get what you deserve.
If ya don’t want a circus in government, DON’T ELECT CLOWNS TO OFFICE.
Oh Roger, I’m one of those you call a primitive extremist. I’m a Christian. And I am proud to BE a Christian. I am not ashamed or embarrassed of Christ. He died for my sins. None of YOU did. God says homosexuality is an abomination and I AGREE WITH GOD.
Interesting. Can you please elaborate on where the Constitution mentions homosexuality, marriage, god, or Christianity? While you’re at it, can you give us some links to anyone here telling you to be ashamed of your religious beliefs? You claim the title “Constituionalist”, and you certainly have opinions, now, back it up with some facts, please.
It amazes me that people criticize the homosexuals as portraying themselves as “victims” and demanding “special treatment” yet in most blogs I’ve read it tends to be the religious fundamentalists that do these things.
Not true – we’re just not going to shut up and sit in the back of the bus anymore. We’ve let you people morally run the country into the ground long enough.
“Not going to sit in the back of the bus” BS, every GOP president since Eisenhower has been a social con, your not going to shut up (mind you, again, no one is telling you to) because you refuse to let go of stateist power and allow citizens to make their own decision.
No one is asking socons to shut up….just how can you say this nonsense with a straight face? You must be new to the blogosphere, very new indeed. Its a regular theme in blogoland.
Well, tough, its time for the Libertarians to stop biting at the ankles of the Socons as we attempt to restore ordered liberty and oust the RINOs. Either that, or the Libertarians can leave the GOP. The Libertarians are enabling the enemies of liberty by attacking socons.
Basic point…Libertarians are Loud but Few n Number. Socons do not NEED Libertarians.
Second basic point, most Socons are fairly Libertarian to begin with (Yes, let’s do away with the Dept. of Energy and Education).
Third basic point, Bush ain’t much of a socon. Bush was more of a Hawk and a Social Moderate….we protected him cause getting killed by an AQ nuke is bad for families. And cause he’s a decent man even when you disagree, and the Left left insane way behind them in the rear view mirror (Its not a socon position to let nutbars rule the society, which is one reason we have problems with Libertarians who granted are a lot more harmless than the Leftards in their nuttiness.)
Reply to Teenwriter below.
You make some pretty brash assumptions for someone who apparently wasn’t alive when Regan was in office. I’ve been on several threads here at PJM, over at Ihatethemedia, Moonbattery and elsewhere pointing out the FACT that the issues the SoCons seem preoccupied with are none of the federal government’s business. And the only one’s who’ve mentioned SoCons being told to “shut up” are the Socons.
If you’re such an experienced researcher perhaps you can provide some links to back up your squeaking?
Perhaps, it was the kindest assumption that you were unaware due to lack of experience.
A few years back, we’d have blatant ‘socons should shut their traps’ people. I got into various debates with that sort. On those, and just random passerby occasions, I would get pretty heavily slammed for being a socon.
The stated fear was that socon beliefs would scare away the moderates, and so we socons had to be quiet was the conclusion. And as Amy Alkon did in this very thread, there were a lot of threats of ‘you lose us if you be too nice to the religious sorts’ which is just another way of –Socons shut your trap!
Lately, socons have been getting real tired of the back of the bus, and so Libertarians have come up with a variety of ways to say teh same exact thing. Let’s all unify around the positions that we all agree on.
Its a more politic way of saying ‘socons shut up’. And for a while, I’d take one of these links from Insty, it seemed about once every three weeks or more, and there would be a major firestorm as both sides tried to outshout and outsneer each other.
We’re still in that phase of ‘let’s unify around what we agree on’, but its getting clear to everyone that there are less and less takers, and this Libertarian ploy is getting stale. Fact is, the socons are getting even more rowdy.
We do not NEED Libertarians.
Socons need libertarians. Libertarians need socons.
Socons shouldn’t push for persecuting people for private behavior.
Libertarians shouldn’t push for speech codes, new shackles on business (or military) administration via anti-discrimination laws, or expanding government via “gay marriage.
Of course it is fair to wonder if those who push for speech codes, new shackles on business and expansion of government really are libertarians.
I hope that, in addition to changing the culture of the GOP, this event changes gay culture as well. There’s a difference between “out” and “outre,” and GOProud is proving every day (to gays as well as conservatives) that you don’t have to go in for all the Folsom Street Fair obnoxiousness in order to be “authentically” gay.
One of the things I disagreed with Michael Steele on was the idea that, in order to prevail, Republicans/Conservatives had to appeal to the interests of this group (e.g. Hispanics) or the aspirations of that group (fill in the blank).
A friend of mine tells me that “young women hate Sarah Palin” and we’ve got to figure out a way to bring those young women into the fold.
My own take is that you can go crazy trying to get this group or that group under some imagined Big Tent. Identity politics (on which the Left thrives) is the problem, not the solution.
All persons who share common principles (not all persons of a certain skin color, sexual orientation, age, whatever) belong.
“A friend of mine tells me that “young women hate Sarah Palin” and we’ve got to figure out a way to bring those young women into the fold.”
This is wrong. Young women love Sarah, it the older women who don’t like her. When I worked on the McCain campaign, most of the young female volunteers were Palinistas.
At any Palin event most of the volunteers are women in their mid-20′s. This is why Palin is so dangerous to the status quo. If young conservative women can recongnize each other and work together, then culturally everything can change.
To quote a great movie:
So long as the (Republicans) fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people – greedy, barbarous, and cruel…
Gays serve openly in the military now, that means honest to god gay heroes are likely. And if one were to win the medal of honor would you all deny him or her the right to marry whom they please? If you would, good luck selling that to the American people.
Gays serve openly in the military now, that means honest to god gay heroes are likely.
It means lots of frivolous grievances and lawsuits are more likely.
You can give a medal of honor to a drug addict. It doesn’t make his drug use sane or acceptable.
To quote a great conservative Barry Goldwater:
“You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”
So being gay is the same as drug addiction? Really? You are going with that analogy? So should we even tolerate gays and like drug addicts, gays should be arrested and sent to be reeducated (rehab), because they are sick and not adhering to God’s Law?
Was that the Barry Goldwater who went down to historic defeat to LBJ in 1964?
What about the two overwhelming victories of Ronald Reagan who cobbled together a conservative coalition that included social conservatives?
Which model do you really want to follow?
Yes, it was a coalition wasn’t it? As a Reagan voter, I can turn that right back on you: why are you trying to hijack the coalition for your one issue? because that coalition INCLUDED libertarian minded people from all walks of life, just like the Tea Party.
The ones who are calling for the exclusion of pro-gay marriage folks from the coalition in this thread are the soc-cons. Just like they call for the exclusion of the pro-abortion people who happen to be small government supporters. They say we’re not “true” conservatives, using the “no true Scotsman fallacy.
There’s even a southern so-con posting here who thinks that using the Democratic process of voting is “ramming it down his throat via legislative fiat”!!! He doesn’t make your side look very good.
They say we’re not “true” conservatives, using the “no true Scotsman fallacy.
I dunno Sarge. I think you can take it as axiomatic that “no true conservative” would approve of anal sex.
I think you can say the same thing about adultery.
Now, there are plenty of true conservatives who have committed both these vices but no true conservative would ever approve of them.
The same thing can be said with regards to abortion. No true conservative would approve of overturning generations of law citing words that can’t be found in the document that gives the laws their authority.
And no true conservative would certainly approve of using tax dollars to subsidize abortions as has been the case since the ’70s.
I have no problem with homosexuals being part of the conservative movement but if you truly want to advance the cause of small government you would not support an action that would obviously alienate the far larger soc-con part of the movement by demanding that they give approval to something they clearly think is wrong.
And as I said on another thread, gay marriage is increasing the size of government.
@SGT Ted;
You are assuming tht GOProud is conservative. So far I have posted several links to their own website that show they are not fiscally conservative or particularly strong on national defense issues. Where are they conservative? I suspect that you simply want to include them in the conservative coalition because they are gay and that somehow makes you feel good about yourself.
If I am wrong, then demonstrate how they are conservative. They talk a good talk but so far their actions demonstate they are not conservative.
I personally served with several honest, responsible, hard fighting gays in my 26 years of service in the US Army. Your comment is ignorant bigotry defined. You should be ashamed. I hope one of your children turns out gay. That would be a good life lesson for you in true Christian love and tolerance.
But, they fought for your right to remain an ignorant bigot, in the face of overwhelming evidence. Fortunately, none of the ones I know were killed in action. You go right ahead and keep posting.
” I hope one of your children turns out gay.”
Looks like you’re laying a curse on the man. Or wishing him ill?
Kind of like saying I hope you win the lottery but have to spend the winnings on medical care?
So did I. And when homosexuality is given institutional legitimacy in the armed forces, we are in a whole different world from the one you’re referring to. Was your CO queer, and did he promote on the basis of sexual compliance of his charges. But, let me guess, you’ll say that won’t happen, right?
OF course it will happen, just like it happens with COs and Senior NCOs who are straight. The UCMJ covers that already.
That was an easy one. NEXT!
Woo hoo! You mean we get to be cool? Wow! Hey, who cares about core conservative principles when coolness is ours to be had? /sarc
If libertarians wish to flex their newfound power in the GOP by forcing the homosexual agenda on the party, they will divide it and the Dems will be back in control. Social conservatives, especially evangelicals, will not support a platform that recognizes things like gay marriage. These people have been a backbone of the party and if they stay home the GOP will lose everytime. I thought it was supposed to be the damned social conservatives who would make A big deal of social issues and divide the party, and then along come the libertarians to rub the homosexual agenda in our faces.
I know you will all think I am a troglodyte who probably cruises gay bars to look for people to beat up, but I am sorry to disappoint you. I could care less what people do in their private lives. What I worry about, as a true “conservative” (as defined by Russell Kirk, the intellectual father of the modern conservative movement), is that we are rushing to make drastic and irreversible changes in the basic institutions of our society without having any good idea of what the long term ramifications will be. People think that somehow we can make sweeping social changes that completely change the character of the institions that are the bedrock of society and that only good will come of it. This is madness. We are taking great risks with our long term survival as a nation and a society so that we can pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on what good people we are. This is the way of progressives, not conservatives.
Well said, Pickwick! Thanks.
The ones “forcing the agenda” are the social cons who decided to run off and pout instead of stay and debate. The libertarians are simply pointing out that the “gay agenda” that completely pre-occupies the religious right is a meaningless distraction. Grown ups who are confident in making their own decisions know that the “sanctity” of their marriages don’t rely on exclusion of some other group.
It is the religious right who handed the country to the leftists by continuing to drive away those who seek liberty.
That’s not a matter of faith, it’s a matter of reality.
Don’t you love a country where this kind of dialogue can take place? That’s the one thing I try to remember when discussing this contentious and important issue.
But what’s the issue? For my mind it is the question of morality. What role does morality play in a healthy, free society? Libertarian or libertine, we still need to answer this question. We have history, secular and religious to guide us, if we will but study it.
What is true? Once we determine this, we can determine what is the right course to take, and what are the right things to do. I would say that freedom includes a moral code. What is that moral code? How do we apply it?
Andrew’s party, GOProud, CPAC, all of it is interesting, and marvelous in many respects. But it’s the groun-level individual discussions of morality, truth, and freedom that we need to continue to have.
Thanks Roger for giving us a form for this.
Certainly morality in society must be discussed, but so must the morality of legislating “morality”. Whether people like it or not, morality is, always has been, and always will be relative, but laws are (at least in theory) absolute. An islamic fundamentalist would think it’s “immoral” not to stone a rape victim to death, a catholic fundamentalist would think it’s “immoral” to practice birth control. Certain baptist fundamentalists think it’s “immoral” to dance.
We simply can not base laws on “morals” and expect a good outcome. Morality and fairness isn’t what government is about, equal protection under the law is.
The best way to settle the argument, in my opinion is to get the government completely out of the “marriage” business. Make all government sanctioned unions “civil unions” and make all “marriages” religious unions. Anyone can have the former, but it’s up to the church or other religious office to determine who can get the latter.
Your position to confine marriage to churches, and have only civil unions for gov performed cerimonies makes logical sense. However I suspect that a male/female couple that decides to get married by the justice of the peace, will resent it if they are told they are not really married. Logically they should not, since both marriages and civil unions have the same legal rights, but I know they will.
What is wrong with civil unions for gays, and marriage for heteros, as long as both have the same legal rights? You would probably say that it singles gays out as somehow different. But they really are different aren’t they, just like a polygamous marriage is different. The main difference is gay couples can never have kids within their marriage. Of course neither can 70 yr old couples, or couples where one is sterile, but at least MOST hetero marriages can have kids, while NO gay marriages can, unless they use surragacy, artificial insemination, or adoption.
Once a cure or in utero preventive intervention for homosexuality is found, then this issue will go away.
All law is legislating morality in one way or another. Every law on the books exists because some behavior was/is considered detrimental to society and sometimes actively harmful. The whole distinction between criminal and civil codes exists because certain detrimental behaviors are actively harmful to society, while others are merely immoral.
But law doesn’t make morality, it merely recognizes it. Some intrinsically immoral behaviors (e.g., lying) are ignored when the societal interest in liberty is thought to outweigh the probable harm to the rest of society of tolerating the behavior. Some behaviors that are not intrinsically immoral (e.g., building a fire hazard) are sanctioned because they immorally externalize risks onto the rest of society.
Why is equal protection under the law important? Why is breach of contract a tort? Why is self-defense a valid use of force? Why does the state recognize marriage at all? Why do parents have rights to determine how their children shall be raised? These are all, at root, moral questions.
There’s no escaping a moral foundation for the criminal and civil law. The only question is which philosophy will provide it. Our foundation is based on Christianity in particular, and our legal code grows increasingly incoherent and internally self-contradictory as it deviates from that. (Example: A code that considers breach of contract a tort, but adultery not one, is simply incoherent.)
Perhaps you are confusing the laws of theocracies like Iran with the US? Here the laws are written to protect RIGHTS.
The Bill of Rights, sure. The rest of the laws, not so much. But it doesn’t matter: even the clarifications and limitations placed on enumerated rights take their cue from a moral code (why exactly is it wrong to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theatre?). The little secret of America’s founding document is that our “self-evident”, “unalienable” rights are only self-evident to one who already accepts Christian doctrine on the equality of men before God. Without that pre-existing philosophy, you have a bootstrapping problem.
The Republican party, first of all, is not the party of small government but pretend small government. There are a few members — like Arizona Republican Jeff Flack, who ran the Barry Goldwater institute, and who stands up against earmarks — who are true fiscal conservatives. Not most.
Furthermore, the party loses fiscal conservative libertarians like me with its promotion of religiously based conservatism.
By the way, if gay people get fewer rights, they should pay fewer taxes. Here’s a kid speaking out for the right of his parents (two women) to marry. Tell me how that somehow would diminish marriage for heterosexuals?
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/04/great_kid_raise.html
(Sorry if you believe, sans evidence, that there’s a Big Man In The Sky, and in all that goes with, but you don’t get to deny others rights based on your gullibility.)
Homosexuality is the exact moral equivalent of the tax and spend attitudes that fiscal conservatives hate. Take moral capital and achievements from others, do nothing to replace it, and spend it on your pleasures. Do not bring children into the world and raise them to uphold the next generation. Instead, look for the young and attractive and seduce them. Do not practice self control. Do not defer your desires. Tell the producers of moral capital–traditional families with traditional marriages–that they are the problem and are bigoted and hateful.
GOProud has a split personality, among its other personality disorders.
‘Sans evidence’….grrrrr.
I’m not going to insult all atheists by suggesting they can’t handle basic logic, and understand historial evidences. Many conservatives who happen to be atheists are well-spoken, thoughtful, and courteous. I’ve learned things from such gentlefolk, and while I wish they agreed with me that Jesus is the Christ, the Creator of the World, a fact well-attested too, I still am happy to have them in the GOP Party, and the Conservative Movement. And if some of them were to say “I’m a real conservative, defends traditional values, tight with a penny, love the Constitution as it is, and will defend the Nation against enemies, but I’m also an atheist….” Well, I could find my Southern Baptist self voting for them.
However, you can feel free to join the Democrat Party. You might as well, you’re doing their work for them.
How do they get fewer rights? If marriage exists as the union of a man and a woman, there is no legal construct that prevents homosexuals from entering into such a union. In that regard they have the same right as anyone else. Their opposition is based on the fact that they don’t care for the way marriage is defined by the rest of society. When put to the ballot and the people of a state vote to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and their expressed will is thrown out by a single unelected judge I’d say your thesis is exactly backwards: if anything, they have more rights than others.
“The younger generation…see gayness…as a civil rights issue. Many of them brand the GOP as bigoted.” TRUE. Yet a 25-year old buddy of mine says this reflects a lack of thinking about marriage, for instance. Marriage is a public issue only because of children. This is why many frontier states (and some states still) recognize common law marriage. Society has an interest in their marriages BECAUSE society s interest in the welfare of their offspring.
The solution for rights hungry gays is to have children. Then the public will have a vested public interest in their partnerships. Still, relatively few gays do. And few of the young think about such important issues so deeply – why should their elders take them seriously, except that they sometimes vote?
As far as gays having kids, I think many gays would wish to, but there are legal obstacles in their way, like no shared custody rights for gay couples, and bans on gay adoption in many places.
I think the best way out is by graduated steps. First, legalize civil unions, and allow gay people to adopt, if they qualify otherwise. Once the public starts seeing stable gay unions, raising well bred kids, then views will change over time, and full gay marriage will get more support.
There’s more than legal obstacles, there’s something called biology. That’s the whole reason heterosexual marriage is and has been the foundation of the family unit, because without the union of man and woman there is no natural family. Homosexual unions do not transmit life from this generation to the next. They are the cul-de-sacs of the human condition.
Is child conception now to be relegated to womb rental and flipping through a sperm bank catalog? Why, it’s like selecting drapes and carpets! “Here’s your mom the young 20-something who needed extra cash and rented out her womb; here’s your dad the turkey baster”
Reagan, as an actor had a lot of interaction with homosexuals. Just saying, that may be one more reason for the Gov’t to get out of the business of declaring religious sacraments valid or no.
Still waiting on someone to tell me where the Constitution states that gay marriage is banned and that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to everyone except responsible adult homosexuals.
Is it next to the Right to an abortion? Because I can’t find that one either. That may be my problem.
Civil society is allowed to determine the rules that they live by. Shoving changes down their collective throats by legislative fiat (which is the only way they have been able to push this agenda) is not ever going to acceptable.
lolly,
first I will apologise for my crack about southerners. I made it because that dude called a committed responsible gay relationship the equivalent of pedophelia, which is a disgusting crime.
I take great exception to that because I have an elder cousin in a relationship and both are very responsible, successful people. They are both senior citizens now and still working hard, and not sucking off the government teat. It was grossly offensive and frankly a bigotted statement. If I had heard him make that remark in my presence, I would have punched him.
So I made my own bigotted statement to make the point. Now to address your statement:
Civil society is allowed to determine the rules that they live by.
As long as they respect Constitutional Rights I agree.
Shoving changes down their collective throats by legislative fiat (which is the only way they have been able to push this agenda) is not ever going to acceptable.
bzzzt, wrong. Thats called “voting”, which is ENTIRELY ACCEPTABLE. Indeed it is how we run this country.
You ARE aware that Prop 8 in CA banning gay marriages was VOTED FOR aren’t you? Was that by “legislative fiat”?
Why do you not show us where the writers of the Constitution wrote it to allow homosexual marriage? Right now you are sounding a lot like the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which rejected the will of the people and ordered the state legislature to make gay marriage happen.
I believe it should be decided by each state as the Constitution doesn’t forbid it or allow it.
I don’t think the courts should decide.
You anti-gay marriage dudes need to read what I actually wrote and quit with the knee jerk reaction anything that challenges your opinion. My support is for ordered LIBERTY and the Constitution as written doesn’t address gay marriage, which is MY ENTIRE POINT. Which means that EACH STATE can decide in accordance with the Constitution.
I think the same about abortion. The STATES should decide. Ordered liberty demands it I think. Like I said also, if you can get an ban on gay marriage thru the amendment process, I can accept that. Because thats how it works.
Whats so hard to get about that?
Screeching bible crap at me doesn’t convince me at all. You don’t get to rule with the bible, just the Constitution please. If you can make a coherent argument that supports your opinion with Constitutional principles, I will listen to it. I might even change my mind.
I’ve supported every Republican president since my first vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Treating me as if I’m Nancy Pelosi doesn’t convince me of anything other than you are a kook who can’t handle dissent.
Equating consenting adult sex as the equivalent of pedophilia is un-called for, which is why I made my crack about “cousin poking southerners” It sucks when YOUR ox is gored isn’t it?
Back up there junior and put on some big boy pants.
My post is a perfect response to your post at 39. I did not screech Bible at you. Nor did I say anything about pedophiles. If you cannot give an honest response then maybe you should refrain or deal with what I actual said.
Sorry in that I replied to the wrong post.
But you can take your belittling tone elsewhere there buddy.
@ SGT Ted:
Sorry that I responded to your wrong response.
Oh, good heavens! A gay community that doesn’t wear it’s sexuality on it’s sleeve, but wants to be part of the meaningful political debates of our time: Constitutional government, smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The world will crumble. The next thing you know, someone will tell me that there are Republican teachers, nurses, federal employees,and auto-workers who are expecting fat pensions with benefits. What is the difference in the groups and their bonafide qualifications to vote Republican?
I’m not worried about a big tent Republican Party, but when people share political values with us, why is it so important to debate their fitness to hold those views and work toward them? I don’t care what any of you do in your bedroom (hetero or not), and if God has an opinion, He’ll take it up with you (hetero- or not)at The Escaton (I won’t be the one holding anyone accountable). What I do care about is working to preserve the Union, and the freedom I hold dear to worship God.
If we don’t work shoulder to shoulder with gays, union members and other unlikely conservatives, this ideological war in our country will be lost in 2012, and our national identity with it. Get over the differences, we’re all believers in the foxhole.
Roger L. Simon considers social issues to be “anachronistic.” He directly cited abortion as anachronistic but what other social issues would he include. He has already demonstrated his own lack of commitment to the Second Amendment. What other issues Roger? Planned Parenthood? School choice? Access to healthcare – a social issue for the left?
Please elaborate since you made the comment.
I think that abortion should be legal if for no other reason that most women who have them are from demographic groups that vote for the Democ-rats!
However, homosexual marriage is a direct threat to civilization, and i don’t mean only Western civilization. It must be prohibited and an amendment to the constitution prohibiting it is necessary due to judicial activism in this area.
Makes me wonder what you smoked at the party, Mr Simon, to get so muddled even the morning after. I say, pap.
It seems we have a lot of dancing around the issues without getting to the meat of what is going on. First:
Government is the legislator of morality and it has a deep responsibility to do so. The argument here just boils down to where society/government wants to place the moral bar and restrict freedoms in accordance with that bar. As society becomes more debased, the lower the bar is set. Once the bar gets too low, a society ceases to function and it becomes another unrecoverable turd world s@#t hole.
With that in mind we can easily define the various political classifications with regard to morality:
Lib-ertarian = those with no morals, but don’t want to spend money cleaning up the consequences of their lack thereof.
Lib-eral = either a total degenerate or completely devoid of intelligence. They have no bar nor do they even possess self-preservation skills.
Conservative = wants to keep the bar high
Fiscal conservative, but social liberal = see libertarian
With regard to homosexuals: They are sexual deviants no different than any other sexual deviant. They just happen to be the squeakiest wheel. The only thing that makes their behavior only slightly more moral than that of a pedophile or rapist is that the parties involved are all consenting adults. As a free country, most Americans respect that and if they want to engage in their proclivities in private, more power to them.
Unfortunately, homosexuals aren’t happy with that, they want their deviancy embraced and celebrated and it appears that they won’t to be happy until that happens.
To that I say “sorry, but my moral bar just isn’t that low.” It’s kind of like praising alcoholics for being alcoholics. You can love them, but you don’t want your children following their path.
To you lib-whatever types: better wake up before it’s all gone.
To conservatives: time to be the squeaky wheel.
Well done, Andrew Breitbart. Well done. Reading through these comments it is clear that you have diverted the conversation to gay marriage instead of fiscal sanity and ending political corruption of the progressive movement. You have successfully divided and conquered the unity of this movement. The democrats could never, in their wildest imaginations have dealt a greater blow.
Hey, maybe next time you can get the Planned Parenthood people to set up a tent. Then we could purge all those uncool people from our ranks for once and for all. That would be really smart.
Bullseye!!!!!
I don’t think you can successfully push this issue past in breezy triumph and move on. You’ve guaranteed a war over it. Your cohort, Rick Moran, writing on this site yesterday, put it this way:
“For better or worse, America is constantly in motion, and like a steamroller, flattens the past and readies the ground ahead for whatever transformation is to occur.”
That’s a rhetorical device of the Left: ‘The issue is settled. We are on the side of a Great Historical Transformation and reactionary elements might as well shut up and get out of the way.’ I note you are spiking strongly opposing comment, both on Pajamas and on American Thinker, which, as you state, is your right–as libertarians of course. Perhaps it’s just a sign of your confidence that serious debate has ended.
Those of us who didn’t understand the seriousness of this now do, and who is behind it. Breitbart closed the tent to me. It will decide my vote in 2012, forcing me further to the religious Right than I care to go. In New Republican Party theory, I’m now a reactionary impediment to growth, marginalized, and ready for replacement by a younger, “cooler,” Center-Right Republican voter, reliably going to the polls to change the World in accordance with your neo-60′s flight of fancy. At least I’m now clear on categories: I’m not a libertarian conservative after all. The basics of culture come first.
So, you’ve shown us your vision, Mr. Simon; everything will now depend on the correctness of your numbers, actual voter commitment to it, and the unpredictability of human beings and of political events.
I for one appreciate what Roger Simon has done to move conservatism forward. Don’t throw him overboard yet. Clearly he understands that if the we don’t get some change going on, the radical Islamists will settle these issues for us. We can and need to come together and put the issues of abortion and gay marriage aside for now. We can argue about them once we get out of debt and clean out the corruption that threatens us all today.
Tyranny don’t care if your old or young, purple or green, man or woman. It is out to oppress and enslave all.
Because you are gay, or any other thing in life, what you don’t have the liberty to protect your Liberty?
Tyranny is an equal opportunity murderer of life and prosperity.
Liberty is an equal opportunity of the beauty of self determination and pursuit of happiness. It is the original “Rainbow Coalition”.
The real McCoy
Mr. Breitbart is very brave courageous American Hero.
God Bless him please
Indeed. It would be to the benefit of all if people focused on what’s really important: Defeating those who wish to do us in. Not much more complicated than that.
Yes, Breitbart is a courageous man who threw a party. He ranks up there with the first guy who spoke out against towel fights in the lockeroom. Even as we speak he is being applauded in the liberal media and by moderate to liberals like Simon.
Fortunate Son:
Saying there is next to no difference between what two adult do privately and pedophilia shows no critical reasoning skills in the slightest on your part and you should probably be sent back to 7th grade to learn to make Venn diagrams so you can compare and contrast a bit better. Because of your inability to make such huge moral distinctions between assaulting a person against his/her will causing physical, mental, and emotional pain and an activity that uses no coercion and causes no harm, I think the rest of your morality is probably just as skewed and is not to be trusted. Maybe your spiritual advisor can explain it better than you can because you’ve clearly only put about 3 brain cells to work thinking about the ridiculousness of your statements.
For the others “gay marriage is not a right/not in the constitutions….”. Yes but neither is traditional marriage. It was created by government fiat (which I thought was bad according to the comments above, or is it governments fiats I don’t agree with are bad…). Because it was created under the law it should apply equally to everyone (thats in the constitution, I checked). So if you want to get govt out of the marraige business all together, because its not constitutional, you’re at least consistent. But quit wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You sound like a bunch of whiny democracts saying you believe in certain ideas/rights but only want them applied to select groups of people for ideological reasons.
To all of you moderate republicans, I wish you the best of luck, and I mean it. As long as you have people like Fortunate Son telling people they are immoral, sexual deviants your party will not go anywhere. You can only make so much ground on Democratic incompetence alone before you might have to change a few positions (which aren’t constitutional anyways). Fortunate Son said conservatives like him need to be the “squeaky wheel”. They already are and it aint helping, its hurting.
I believe it should be decided by each state as the Constitution doesn’t forbid it or allow it.
I don’t think the courts should decide.
You anti-gay marriage dudes need to read what I actually wrote and quit with the knee jerk reaction anything that challenges your opinion. My support is for ordered LIBERTY and the Constitution as written doesn’t address gay marriage, which is MY ENTIRE POINT. Which means that EACH STATE can decide in accordance with the Constitution.
I think the same about abortion. The STATES should decide. Ordered liberty demands it I think. Like I said also, if you can get an ban on gay marriage thru the amendment process, I can accept that. Because thats how it works.
Whats so hard to get about that?
Screeching bible crap at me doesn’t convince me at all. You don’t get to rule with the bible, just the Constitution please. If you can make a coherent argument that supports your opinion with Constitutional principles, I will listen to it. I might even change my mind.
I’ve supported every Republican president since my first vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Treating me as if I’m Nancy Pelosi doesn’t convince me of anything other than you are a kook who can’t handle dissent.
Equating consenting adult sex as the equivalent of pedophilia is un-called for, which is why I made my crack about “cousin poking southerners” It sucks when YOUR ox is gored isn’t it?
maybe you anti-gay marriage folk ARE simple minded bigots, like the left portrays you as.
I was there and thought Sophie was fantastic! So filled with love and vitality. Has anyone read the lie they posted on Huffington post about what Sophie said. I stood next to her when she spoke to Michael Steele and all she said to him was so charmed to meet you and they say she said something lewd about Gov Palin
“maybe you anti-gay marriage folk ARE simple minded bigots, like the left portrays you as.”
Well done, Andrew Breitbart. Well done. See how you got everyone stired up? You shook the shiney keys and the children all lost focus. We have crushing debt bankrupting us, corruption that threatens our republic and organized forces such as Islamic extremists, communists and plenty of others who would love to burn us to the ground using our own tax dollars. And now something much less important has the children all in a tizzy.
Divide and conquer. Well done.
Im not leaving the coalition over gay marriage. The anti-gay marriage people will have to decide for themselves if they are willing to destroy the coalition over this issue.
Proudest Hour
Nothing screams pride as much as throwing out all your senses and ignoring all the signs that what you are is going to bring about bad things and doing it anyways.
The problem with gays and the GOP has nothing to do with libertarianism.
The gay movement wants to use the government, hardly a libertarian approach, to force my church to provide same-partner benefits to gay employees. It wants to force our charities to go against the fundamental church teachings in providing adoption services for gay couples, even if the result is that we are forced to provide no adoption services at all (as has happened in Boston).
The gay movement is statist and libertine, not libertarian.
I and my church (the Catholic church) neither condemn homosexuals nor try to harm them. However, we expect the same in return. We have not gotten it. The gay rights movement has morphed into a bigoted anti-Catholic crusade.
I work with gays. I served with the in the military long ago. I have no problem with them.
The problem is when the gay rights movement demands not rights, but government enforced privileges, that are inconsistent with human history and the human condition. Gay “marriage” and gay adoption (except in special circumstances) are in that category.
My views are consistent with much of the Republican base. So gays who are not trying to use the government to achieve the ends I described are welcome. Hopefully more will separate their sexuality from their politics, and recognize that in any political party, people will differ on some important issues.
“The gay movement is statist and libertine, not libertarian.”
Touche, SChaser.
I entirely agree with your comment. The Gay Movement is all too often about the coercion and silencing of those who disagree with their agenda, not human rights for all. Like the radical feminists, beginning in the ’60s, their agenda is supremacy, not equality, and they’re especially virulent in condemning the Catholic Church for its beliefs and values which have been held for hundreds of years — to the benefit, I might add, of Western civilization.
Up here in Canada, we have kangaroo courts called Human Rights (sic) Commissions (HRCs) to whom anyone who is “offended” by another’s POV can take the offending person. All of the expenses for the complainee, which are considerable, are paid for by the State, whereas the person who’s being complained about must personally bear the cost of being prosecuted. The process, itself, is punishment enough, and usually takes years of grinding harassment and idiocy on the part of the HRC (whose prosecutors are patronage appointees of the government, not necessarily lawyers or judges, in fact, usually not) and, to add insult to injury, often results in tens of thousands of dollars of costs, including a fine and, sometimes, the requirement of “sensitivity training.”
Those most often targeted have been Christians, just for publicly voicing the church’s position on homosexual acts. There isn’t one case where a Christian has been exonerated, nor have there been any cases where someone who’s complained about a gay person’s actions or comments has even been “allowed” by an HRC, because it’s their call whether or not a complaint will be heard by them.
Like you, I welcome gays in the political process “who are not trying to use the government” to achieve their own, often self-serving and vindictive agenda.
I should add, that in one’s defense in front of a Human Rights (sic) Tribunal up here in the True, North, strong and free (as we sing in our National Anthem), truth is no defense, unlike in a real court.
I think you and kjh both should read Tom Swift at #28. You are confusing the gay liberals’ agenda and gay conservatives’ agenda.
Tom Swift’s comment is a good one, and if he’s correct, then the conservative gays need to make a definitive statement that they are not asking for extra rights or privileges and nor are they wanting gay unions to be either blessed or called “marriages” by Christian churches.
Unfortunately, it will be a tough sell, seeing as the activist gays and their supremacist and punitive agenda have been in the works since, at least, the early ’90s.
I’m told both want to find a cure.
The true freedom answer is that marriage is a religious sacrament and the government should not be involved. No licenses, no subsidies. Marriage license laws in America started as Jim Crow laws to stop blacks from marrying whites. Abolish all marriage laws and leave it to the churches.
Yes. The government does not get involved in Baptism, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction, Confirmation, Communion, or Confession. It can butt the hell out of Matrimony as well.
The government has a place with marriage. Marriage is the family form which contributes the most to society. Marriage also involves the care of children, in which society and the government has a direct stake.
Hence marriage as a government recognized form is important, and that needs to be heterosexual marriage.
Civil unions are fine for other issues – medical rights, inheritance, etc, and should be provided for homosexuals.
Having found myself in agreement with your views on things, Mr. Simon, I was taken aback by your unabashed enthusiasm for the GOProud Event at CPAC. To me, “conservative” means conserving what is best of our spiritual and cultural practices and traditions — and that doesn’t include, IMO, the tenets of the rather recent “gay agenda.”
Although it’s uncool to talk about these facts, the realities of the gay lifestyle is rather alarming: Those active in the gay lifestyle are at high risk of drug and alcohol abuse, frequent violence in (very often non-monogamous) relationships, and of contracting life-threatening STDs, including HIV/AIDS. As a parent, I am hard-pressed to imagine encouraging my children to be “cool” and enter into the gay lifestyle, let alone being enthusiastic about a gay-agenda-friendly GOP.
There is a thoughtful discussion of the GOProud event over at Power Line:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
That’s what the extremists currently do; lie and hide their true agenda, from BHO to Ron Paul, progressives and libertarians alike.
This celebration of the success of the 60s New Left Radicals to change society as the future of the GOP and for the better, might be good for the GOP, but its going to be dissasterous for Western Civilization.
Glee watchers are very well informed by their Leftwing Indoctrinators in the Education System and the Media, no doubt.
Apparently my first post was lost…
While conservatives should welcome gays into our midst, we should still fight the “gay agenda” where it involves the use of government power. Hopefully the GOProud attendees are not also supporters of this agenda. If the Republican party is hijacked to this cause, it will disappear.
By “gay agenda” I am referring to the gay activists pushing government recognized gay marriage, government enforced gay spousal benefits from employers, and especially gay adoption.
The Catholic Church, which operates a huge number of charitable operations is constantly under attack by these activists. Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down rather than operate in contravention of their religious beliefs – at a cost to the whole community. The message this trumpets from gay activists is: give us what we want, or screw everyone else.
I find it interesting that many “libertarians” support this agenda. Everything I mentioned is government intrustion into private religion, right of free association, and ecnomic liberty.
So while Republicans should welcome support of gays who are in concurrence on small government and foreign policy issues, we must be wary of those who would push their radical social bills.
Let’s push for a cure.
I can’t wait until the GOP holds a party for the bestialists and those who think incest is a civil rights issue. While we are at it, let’s open the tent for pedophiles. There are many of us who still believe homosexuality is immoral and bears no resemblace to a “civil rights issue.” Please don’t expect us to accept such behavior in the name of “tolerance” and “civil rights” and “modern thinking.”
Pretty dark place, that mind of yours. And I thought the leftist were the only ones into “projection”.
Obviously not as dark as yours and all homosexuals’ mind and agenda.
In the name of “tolerance” you expect me to accept your morality and renounce mine. If one deeply believes something such as homosexuality is morally wrong, one should not compromise that belief in order not to be seen as “intolerant.” Most in the homosexual community do not simply want tolerance of their lifestyle, they want it to be accepted as normal behavior.
As expected, your concerns are flippantly dismissed as being just some perverse slippery slope argument. However, did you know that in the Netherlands there is an entire political party whose main agenda is legalizing pedophilia? They want the age of consent lowered to 10 or 12. Every time someone dismisses the slippery slope argument, it’s only because they refuse to look at what’s already going on further down the slope. There’s no way a pedophilia party would come into existence in a society that still respected the sanctity of marriage and the family unit. Such a party could only come into existence in a society already debased and debauched to the extent of the Netherlands, which proudly dispatch abortion ships to international waters for their “services”.
If there are fun after parties; I might actually go next time…
There is nothing to be proud of when you are involved with homosexuality. It is immoral and has nothing to do with conservatism. It is a shame that so called “conservatives” do not see this and stand up against it. Rather they are sucked up into it. They choose to be hip, cool, or “open minded”. But you have to choose, are you a conservative or a libertarian? Libertarians are scared to take moral stands most of the time, but a conservative should not be. Right is right and wrong is wrong, period. This is why I am not a libertarian, I cannot not live in a world of grey. I must take my stance. Libertarians do alot of good against the massive government and it being out of control, but on moral issues they are found wanting. I choose to attack the corrupt government while still taking a moral stance on cultural issues.
My moral stance is that Government exists to protect everyones civil rights, not legislate the religious dogma of one particular religion. And while there might not be gray area’s within your religion, there certainly are within the law.
The Constitution addresses those very real gray areas of our democracy by reserving all the rights not discussed in the document to the State level. Which means, like abortion, gay unions are up to each state’s voters to decide, not some Bishop, Pope or Imams declaration.
You are of course free to think that homosexual conduct is wrong morally, based on your religious beliefs. This does not give you blanket authority to ban it. You must convince your fellow citizens of that first.
If you say so. I argue that abortion is murder and violates the constitution. I also argue that homosexual marriage is wrong because it redefines marriage. I would also say that our founders were anti homosexual. Washington kicked a sodomite out of the military and Jefferson co authored a state law for castration for the crime of sodomy. I don’t see them as grey areas at all. You cannot have a healthy society that murders their own children and accepts deviant behavior such as homosexuality as normal. Society must draw a line. I also do not see murder as a civil right, nor do I see redefining marriage for the whim of sodomites as a civil right.
Now you can deflect all of that by hiding under the anti religion banner, but it really is just common sense. Society must have traditional moral values to survive, to be healthy.
I argue that abortion is murder and violates the constitution.
This is an argument I can accept as valid as it refers to an actual Constitutional right.
I also argue that homosexual marriage is wrong because it redefines marriage. I would also say that our founders were anti homosexual. Washington kicked a sodomite out of the military and Jefferson co authored a state law for castration for the crime of sodomy.
Jefferson also owned slaves. Sodomy isn’t an enforceable crime anymore, mainly because of court cases brought by heterosexuals who wanted to have sex however they wanted to in the privacy of their homes. So, not enforceable on homosexuals either.
I don’t see them as grey areas at all. You cannot have a healthy society that murders their own children and accepts deviant behavior such as homosexuality as normal. Society must draw a line. I also do not see murder as a civil right, nor do I see redefining marriage for the whim of sodomites as a civil right.
I don’t think abortion is a civil right. My position is that government needs to get out of regulating marriages.
Now you can deflect all of that by hiding under the anti religion banner, but it really is just common sense. Society must have traditional moral values to survive, to be healthy.
I am not anti-Religion; I am pro-Liberty.
I know too many gay couples in committed relationships, decades old, with children raised as morally responsible adults to agree with your arguement that gay unions are destructive.
The main problem is promiscuous behavior. My thoughts on it are that promiscuous behavior by anyone is destructive, even more so when straights do it because it can lead to unplanned pregnancies, unwanted children and abortions. Maybe straights need tougher laws against promiscuity applied to them than gays because of this. The cost is certainly higher.
You don’t speak for all society. I would argue that attempting to exclude fellow citizens from the societal contract of civil Unions, with its demand for commitment to one another for life is a mistake that drives those citizens away from rather than to living normal morally responsible lives. Because you reject them, they respond by rejecting YOU. This is actually how the leftwing driven gay political movement got started. They used heterosexual disgust and negative treatment of homos to “radicalize” gays and drive them to the left and to denounce living as a straight person does. Is that what you wanted?
You also seem to think that your values are exempt from criticism. They are not. As far as “traditional moral values” goes, if I think that your traditional values violates my or anyone elses right to Liberty, I will oppose it, or ignore it. You would also do well to remember that it used to be immoral and illegal for blacks to marry whites.
It simply is NOT going to work. Conservatives will implode if you continue to attempt to marginalize SOCIAL conservatives. PERIOD, end of story. Continue this nonsense at your own peril.
The younger generations have moved to the view that homosexuality is like race. It is what people are and they should not have fewer rights and privileges than others because of it. Any right or privilege can be fought for…or abused by gays or anyone else. The problem you guys have in creating your big tent is that a certain percent of the votes you need come from people (who are coming through loud and clear on this thread) who find the very fact that someone is gay sinful, therefore a force for evil, and you can throw in creepy. Such is part of their core values; good luck with that.
When given an alternative, the younger generation is all for finding a cure.
“Finding a cure?”
We’re still in that phase of ‘let’s unify around what we agree on’, but its getting clear to everyone that there are less and less takers, and this Libertarian ploy is getting stale. Fact is, the socons are getting even more rowdy.We do not NEED Libertarians.
Really? Tell that to President John McCain.
Oh wait.
McCain was the liberals choice. He was part of their effort to prove they did not need SoCons, or they could force Socons to the yoke like oxen.
I spent a lot of effort trying to stop him, and suffered a LOT of abuse for it (the McCainiac’s were a lot more offensive than you’ve been.)
He was my last place choice for GOP nominee, and in fact, I said publically, that I would vote for Hillary rather than McCain. It was on the principle of ‘better an open enemy than a hidden enemy’.
But then he apologized very, very handsomely for his being a jerk to socons all these years (and honestly probably to libertarians as well) by choosing Sarah Palin.
Like a lot of socons, I voted for Palin and Whatshizname.
Keep in mind Basic Point #1. Libertarians are few and far between, and their natural tendencies make them even less useful in a serious contest. You could drop Libertarians into a very small hole, and the most measurable changes would be an increase in liberty and a decrease in gov’t and less clamor and divisiveness.
This will divide the GOP and may permanently separate social conservatives from the squishy RINO libertarian wing. it will be a sad day but when the GOP become the sodomy party you can kiss it good bye.
Roger, your reference to the ‘younger people’ drawing a coorelation of gay rights to ‘civil rights’ PLAINLY shows the naivete and dare I say ignorance of today’s youth/’Glee’ watching masses.
Instead of ‘going with it’, wouldn’t it be far more productuve to have a discussion with the uninformed/opinion trumps all folks?
Appeasement is precisely why our country is financially bankrupt. Do we need to throw in the towel as well ethically, morally as well for ‘bigger’ tent numbers?
I’m a 35 year old Independent with strong Conservative leanings, ~1 generation removed from said group, and this is a slippery slope Mr. Breitbart is juxtaposing.
It’s amazing what years of being force fed the homosexual agenda in government schools can accomplish isn’t it?
I’m sorry, but throwing a party to try and be inclusive to gays doesn’t show at all that Republicans are changing their views. Until there are policy changes on things like workplace discrimination, same-sex unions (and immigration rights), adoption, bullying in schools, etc., the GOP is still the party of oppressing the LGBT community.
And being gay is not simply about “what happens in the bedroom”. To say that is incredibly naive and shows no understanding of human sexuality. A gay identity is emotional, spiritual, physical, intellectual – just like any other orientation. Gay and lesbians have create a culture and we all carve out our own identity. But to say being gay is just about sleeping with someone of the same gender is marginalizing at best. I worked for Republicans, but I could no longer stand the rhetoric and vitriole they spew about minorities in our country. I stay in the middle, examine the issues, and look for the best candidate, regardless of party.
What’s next Roger L Simon, insisting that Conservatives offer ‘fourty acres and a mule’?
Will that get your Hollywood stoner on?
One more thing roger L Simon, Hollywood stoner-have you not heard the words spoken by Libertarian leader Ron Paul? A vote for Libertarian is a vote for the Death to Israel.
Geller @Atlas Shrugs phrase ‘jewicidal’ appropriately defines everything you are….a Liberal and Libertarian.
Hollywood Sucks Donk Pricks; useful idiots.
“The younger generations have moved to the view that homosexuality is like race. It is what people are and they should not have fewer rights and privileges than others because of it. ”
This is a terrible logical fallacy, but extremely useful for political purposes.
Homosexuality is somewhat like race in that most male homosexuals do not have a choice in their sexuality, just like nobody has a choice in their race.
However, race does not determine behavior, but homosexuals usually have different behavior (romantic and sexual) than non-homosexuals, and this behavioral difference is very significant in certain areas (parenting and promiscuity[statistically], for example).
The goal to make homosexuals “like everyone else, except with a race card” led to the campaign to unduly scare heterosexuals about AIDS, where the risk in most heterosexual groups was miniscule compared to that in homosexuals.
“Homosexuality is somewhat like race in that most male homosexuals do not have a choice in their sexuality, just like nobody has a choice in their race. ”
Homosexuality is like race when it is useful for the arguments of politcal gays. But in other cases, homosexuality is not like race at all. Such as in the case of a 45 yr old husband and father who discovers he’s gay or becomes gay and abandons his family. In that case, such a person wasnt gay from birth and didnt have these made up memories of how they knew they were gay from the age of 3 and so forth… The idea of sexuality being determined from birth with no going back and no changing is contradicted by the second scenario.
There seems to be lots of evidence to indicate that many homosexuals, especially males, are locked into their sexual preference. I should have left in the caveat that a significant number do have a choice, as in your example.
I don’t really know what the fuss is all about. I have no problem with most homosexual issues, I could care less if we have civil unions and I agree that homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against. I also agree with most people that marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexual “marriage” deprives a child of a father or a mother and the unique perspective each brings and thus results in an inferior environment for raising children. That is what distinguishes marriage from homosexual relationships, attempts to draw analogies to past racial discrimination are absurd and do not apply.
I want to love and care about everyone who gives a g-damn for our country and our constitution. What I don’t need is the blatant “I’m this/that/the other” crap. Gay? Black? Brown? Straight? Purple? Who gives a flying leap?
I’m Bi-Sexual…where the hell does that put me? LOL!
Again, who fuggin’ cares? The tiresome label crap needs to stop and folks need to just grow up because the world will always be round no matter how many square pegs you try to force into it. Accept life as you are and don’t “brand” yourself, just BE yourself.
Zen, baby, zen.
“What I don’t need is the blatant “I’m this/that/the other” crap. Gay? Black? Brown? Straight? Purple? Who gives a flying leap? The tiresome label crap needs to stop …don’t “brand” yourself, just BE yourself.”
Right on Delia, “I’m bisexual”. But I’m not sure you have grasped your own point with regards to the discussion here. Why do Andrew and Roger think it useful rather than divisive to showcase gay participaption?
It is as stupid to me as if the conservative hetero men had a party for men who like big T’s. And then have another party for those who like to do it doggy style. What on earth does it have to do with ANYTHING? Why the F does are we highlighting points of difference when it will be difficult enough to get cooperation to achieve what everyone can agree on – elimiating crushing debt, corruption and cronyism.
Exactly, Becky. Why highlight our “differences” especially “differences” which have absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS?! How many GOP lavender “marriages” must we “expose” before we just get over the sexual hang-ups and stick to what is important? How friggin’ prurient do people have to be in order to get their fix of daily gossip while Rome burns?
*sigh*
Oh, good ol’ cultural Marxism at its best! György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci must be laughing hard at their graves. They have won, their methods turned out to be infinitely effective. Right now even conservatives (?) fight their war, but not against them! Well, this is what happens when you choose an ex-lib* as your opinion leader.
* What is not to say that Roger L. Simon is an ex-lib.
Don’t let the door hit you in the @ss.
Better the door than the reality, don’t you think? And it looks like reality is hitting your @ss once and again, once and again, once and again…
Thank you for the free spanking. May I have another, Sir? I promise to reciprocate in kind and with as much weight as you just leveraged against me in your vapid and meaningless reply to moi.
Of course, dear, I know you like it. (After all I pretty much doubt you’re able to enjoy any normal, decorous relation.) Regarding “vapid and meaningless”, sorry, my little lady, it’s not me (I really, really like you), it’s only that horrible thing… reality, nature… terrible things we must overcome. But I’m sure you can do that with words like “vapid” and “meaningless” ( and you can find more in any dictionary, if you feel the need)
I’d like to see factual rebuttals as to why Breitbart has been getting flak, for example, Chris Barron, who Breitbart makes excuses for (Barron’s the head of GOProud) cozied up to the Planned Parenthood bigwigs, in fact he resigned from the so called Log Cabin Republicans to take a job with Planned Parenthood. Barron also cozied up to the AFL-CIO and the SEIU and he’s attacked real conservatives, like Jim DeMint and Tim Pawlenty. Barron isn’t a conservative, he’s one of the current crop of radical leftists being facilitated by the neo-cons to destroy the republican party and conservative movement from within.
Frankly, I’d like to ask why we don’t see conservatives taking a stand against Grover Norquist, a man in the deep pockets of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just consider what’s going on in Egypt right now, and Norquist’s arranging secret meetings with Islamist extremists in the white house during George W. Bush’s administration, plus his vocal support for the Ground Zero Mosque, his wife’s family is highly placed in the Muslim Brotherhood, and both she and Norquist head an organization that props the Muslim Brotherhood up. Norquist seeks to destabilize the republican party, to have his claws in it, so as to control it for his own, and those he serves, bidding. Chris Barron is one of Norquist’s puppets, and this is in no way in aid of a big tent, but in a fractured and thereby much weaker republican party. Those young people you claim this will attract, will be preyed upon by the radicals Barron is bringing with him, and it’s already been said that Barron was involved with the scandal at that California strip club that happened during Michael Steele’s time at the RNC. It’s about getting young conservatives drunk or drugged, and getting them in embarassing situations when they are inebriated to blackmail and control them down the line, or bribing them with positions of power, as long as they dance to Barron and Norquist’s tune. Snap out of it, Mr. Simon, we’re not fools
Mr. Simon it terrible that you are using Christian based morality as an assumption in your article. Such morality, as we all know, has no place in the new, cool conservatism or in big tent politics.
What I am referring to is your antiquated and hetero-centric notion that one person should be limited to marrying one other person. Do you know that polygamists are being persecuted by unjust, religiously based laws? If a group of people want to get married and have a household that resembles a Cartesian product, who are you to deny them that right? As we all know, marriage is a civil right and merely a matter of contract law with no foundation in biology or history, so we can make of marriage whatever we want to.
Polygamy wasn’t a dirty word a few centuries ago, problem was, a lot of guys ended up lonely if they weren’t rich enough to afford even one wife little lone ten or twenty. You tell me which is better? A bunch of angry, frustrated men not getting laid, or a freer society where almost everyone gets a little sumpin’ sumpin’?
Well according to GOProud, they should just be able to seek solace in the loving comfort of another man’s large intestine.
I don’t care how much I like seeing Breitbart stick it to the Hollywood left, and I don’t care how right Tammy Bruce might be on the 2nd Ammendment, or Grover Norquist on taxation – they’re all dead wrong when it comes to those that want to redefine marriage and the family. Period.
Wouldn’t uniting to find a cure be the best alternative.
There’s an old WWII saying:
When you’re taking lots of flack, you know you’re over the target.
Straight ahead Andrew….
“When you’re taking lots of flack, you know you’re over the target.
Straight ahead Andrew….”
uh… that saying usually refers to your enemy not your allies. Nor does one usually pride themselves for dividing and conquering their own team.
As long-time conservative who welcomes both Evangelicals and homosexuals to the conservative cause I believe that the majority of conservatives support civil unions (that have all the same rights of marriage) for gay couples. Hopefully, gays will not be bitter about the semantics of civil union vs. the word “marriage”. Many people who totally accept homosexual civil unions still want the word marriage to be used for a man and a woman. This is because the marriage concept has been acculturated as such for centuries. I say let the people of each state decide on the marriage issue.
“Hopefully, gays will not be bitter about the semantics of civil union vs. the word “marriage”. ”
I think in California they had civil unions. But that judge said for the sake of gays, the definition of marriage itself had to be completely upended. They want nothing else. That is their real goal, not equal insurance benefits or adoption rights.
If the majority of voters in a state decide that they want gays to use the word marriage, then so be it. Since gays are at the most 10% of the population, I seriously doubt, however, that this will happen much at this point in time. I do feel, however, that most people want gays to be allowed to have civil unions with all the rights of marriage. This is because most people do and should want others to be treated as they would like to be treated. And, additionally, it is by far healthier (in every way) for all individuals, both heterosexual and homosexual, as well as for our society at large, to have the stability and order in their lives that partnering with another offers.
If they have all of the same rights, then civil unions are marriage.
Take a poll of conservatives about gay couples adopting children and I think you’d find your assumption to be way off.
As a conservative I feel that each private adoption agency should decide on their specific qualifications for adoption. I do feel, however, that I’d far and away rather see a child who may not be acceptable to a qualified opposite sex couple, actually be adopted by a loving same sex couple as opposed to being institutionalized for their entire childhood, or worse, to be adopted by an abusive opposite sex couple.
Homosexuality is a sin. Period.
But guess what. We are all sinners.
The fact that my sins are different from yours doesn’t give me the right to reject you. Also, being in the seminary, I think I can speak with some authority on the matter.
If you are a conservative, regardless of your sexuality, welcome to the club.
If you are a liberal, you are still my brother.
You conservatives are soooo stupid. We send over a few “former” Trotskyites, a few “former” Stalinists, and under their guidance conservatives now support “big government” conservatism, abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action. When will you conservatives realize you can’t win? That your racist, sexist, homophobic Amerikka is on the ash heap of history? Let’s hear no more nonsense about “morality” or “founding fathers” and the rest of that anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-communist racism.
You conservatives are sooo stupid. We’re sending over a few “former” Greens and “former” Moslems next. In a few years “environmentally healthy” conservatives will be denouncing Capitalism as poisoning the planet and “ecumentical conservatives” will be praising Islam as better than Christianity and begging for Rowan Williams to be Pope!
You conservatives are sooo stupid. “Former.” I can’t believe you fell for that. Your racist, sexist, homophobic Amerikka is dead, dead, dead. Can the destruction of the Zionist Entity be far behind?
Can’t we all agree power corrupts and the sooner we find a cure for homosexuality the better.
More nasty, bigoted, evil shit.
As Piers Morgan’s dismal ratings proved, the only reason the Kardashians, or Piers for that matter, are popular, profitable, and overexposed is because the entertainment media feeds on itself. And media is so incestuous that not only is it left-wing biased but encompasses all departments from the news to international and all outlets from music to screen. So I understand that those who dabble in the Hollywood arena must put on this dog and pony show because the gay agenda is the only thing that got $cientologists like Paul Haggis to reevaluate. Furthermore, when it’s your child you will do anything even to the point of spoiling them (from money to your convictions) so they avoid hurt in this world. But the civic majority must hold fast and stand for family, the principles of western civilization.
Ann Coulter rightly points out in her CPAC2011 speech that the left started the issue of same sex marriage, “To use gays as a cats-paw to attack the family because liberals want the family destroyed, they want religion destroyed, because then you have loyalty directly to the state.” Considering how anti-American all media is, and that no one stood with Molly Norris, I know Marxists or Friendly Fascists will not stand for freedom with conservatives as we proclaim to terrorists, “You will have to kill us all.” Therefore, I am in no mood to give consequence to appeasers.
However, indulge yourself and others if you must but don’t sell it as a “game changer” to the faithful for we recognize a press release. No weak TEA here and AZ has sued the Feds. Big tent? How multi-culti indulgent do you have to be to think the minority community will save let alone significantly assist our nation out of recession or debt to sustained economic growth? 13% African-American population and you believe near 70% single mothers and incarcerated males are a net gain to the local tax base? As Ms Coulter stated, “By the way, congratulations liberals you just about destroyed the black family with these brilliant promotions of single motherhood policies. And now their using the gays.” You think the gay agenda will get America out of economic ruin? Well, as you say, maybe that’s what you wanted to see and wanted to feel. Others are rather upset they keep poking a stick into the Laffer Curve cog.
Just as Mr Goldberg invited everyone to a cocktail party last year with the hip young D.C. crowd who openly ridicule for sport country music, quit making excuses. Those who define themselves with identity politics to set themselves apart from what has already won the field — of battle, ideas, prosperity, freedom — American exceptionalism (to an 8th grade education as taught to the Greatest Generation), must yield and recognize we compromised long ago. (Leaning on the everlasting arms of God holding a wagon wheels to a ration book.) Missile defense shield be thy big tent. Focus on the trade deficit in exporting and immigrant assimilation in American principles of freedom. You see, it doesn’t bother conservatives that RINOs care about diverse feelings what bothers us is that you try so hard. But then we too are indulgent parents who spoil our children. Not all aspiring actors are runaways but are on our healthcare policy till the age of 26 now. So talented, even chanting “war criminal” Ronulans. Participation ribbons all around!
Was it worth it? What is it worth to see everyone’s name in CPAC lights? Let’s ask Medal Of Honor Recipient Staff Sgt. Sal Giunta. He comes with his own ribbon, and may understand best the “conception” of loyalty and “impression” of conservative prayer to give thanks there are still citizens who want to feed our nation and find mercy in rural toil. Is it cool to have true grit?
P.S. My children don’t watch sexualized Glee. Sorry you find me a bigot deaf to civil rights issues. And I’m sorry you find it normative that these children don’t know gayness is a sin but as with all sin there is redemption for then they know not of any bible. What a narrow education.
Roger Simon and most of those writing in support of GOProud want them included in the conservative movement because they are gay. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are conservative. In my post at 24, I offered several links – many to GOProud’s own website – which demonstrated the liberal, big government positions they have taken on several issues. I also pointed out traditional conservatve issues on which GOProud is silent. No one offered a rebuttal. Almost every supporter has instead stressed the fact that they are gay. That says a lot about GOProud and those who want to include them in the conservative coalition. It says that their sexual orientation trumps everything else. It says that the conservatism sponsored by Simon and Breitbart has little to do with the issues and more to do with identity politics. Count me out of that coalition because it is simply a liberal one with a “conservative” name.
I think this is fantastic. The sooner the social cons are driven from the GOP the better. Let those nasty, narrow-minded bigots form their God party. Then finally the rest of us SANE people can get on with the real business!
Talk about ‘narrow minded’. An illiberal in Conservative’s clothing.
But another example of ‘social’ or ‘gender preferred’ justice, yet vying for a seat at yet another political table.
This latest social engineering tactic is just that. A smoke screen from GoProud’s true agenda.
The ‘Kipling’ poster layed it out for even one like you to research the information. Nah, it just doesn’t ‘feel’ right though, eh?
Have fun with ‘your’ sanity and sanctimonium.
It is no great conspiracy secret that there has always been a significant portion of those who identify as “Libertarians” who are almost indinstinguishable from liberals.
I agree that the conservative coalition wouldn’t be hurt much by the loss of *just* the Libertarian Party folks: there aren’t that many.
But what So-Cons might want to remember is that there are PLENTY of people in a category called independants, from BOTH major parties, who are fiscal and defense conservatives the we DO need to win elections and they are turned off by and wary of Rule By Bible. They don’t care about what gays do, or they think that civil unions are the way to go. Thet were the first to leave George Bush when he went fiscally soft, but stayed a so-con.
They are also a significant part of the Tea Party movement, which won in 2010. Do you so-cons purity crowd want to toss them out too?
I argue that abortion is murder and violates the constitution.
This is an argument I can accept as valid as it refers to an actual Constitutional right.
I also argue that homosexual marriage is wrong because it redefines marriage. I would also say that our founders were anti homosexual. Washington kicked a sodomite out of the military and Jefferson co authored a state law for castration for the crime of sodomy.
Jefferson also owned slaves. Sodomy isn’t an enforceable crime anymore, mainly because of court cases brought by heterosexuals who wanted to have sex however they wanted to in the privacy of their homes. So, not enforceable on homosexuals either.
I don’t see them as grey areas at all. You cannot have a healthy society that murders their own children and accepts deviant behavior such as homosexuality as normal. Society must draw a line. I also do not see murder as a civil right, nor do I see redefining marriage for the whim of sodomites as a civil right.
I don’t think abortion is a civil right. My position is that government needs to get out of regulating marriages.
Now you can deflect all of that by hiding under the anti religion banner, but it really is just common sense. Society must have traditional moral values to survive, to be healthy.
I am not anti-Religion; I am pro-Liberty.
I know too many gay couples in committed relationships, decades old, with children raised as morally responsible adults to agree with your arguement that gay unions are destructive.
The main problem is promiscuous behavior. My thoughts on it are that promiscuous behavior by anyone is destructive, even more so when straights do it because it can lead to unplanned pregnancies, unwanted children and abortions. Maybe straights need tougher laws against promiscuity applied to them than gays because of this. The cost is certainly higher.
You don’t speak for all society. I would argue that attempting to exclude fellow citizens from the societal contract of civil Unions, with its demand for commitment to one another for life is a mistake that drives those citizens away from rather than to living normal morally responsible lives. Because you reject them, they respond by rejecting YOU. This is actually how the leftwing driven gay political movement got started. They used heterosexual disgust and negative treatment of homos to “radicalize” gays and drive them to the left and to denounce living as a straight person does. Is that what you wanted?
You also seem to think that your values are exempt from criticism. They are not. As far as “traditional moral values” goes, if I think that your traditional values violates my or anyone elses right to Liberty, I will oppose it, or ignore it.
You would also do well to remember that it used to be immoral and illegal for blacks to marry whites.
dang it there is some quotes from another person in there. doh.