Gay Patriot Header Image

On Joining Forces with Social Conservatives
When Necessary to Preserve Our Liberty

A reader e-mailed me a link a post which quoted a comment from another blog which really got at why I, as a gay man, can feel comfortable in a political coalition with social conservatives who would rather I (and those like me) not act on my natural inclination for intimacy and romantic affection with another man.

Repeating commentshe made on another site about moderates attempting to dismiss religious conservatives within the Republican Party, Bill_Dalasio offers:

my main concern in politics is maintaining my freedom. And, in practical, definable terms, the daily threats to my liberty are not being pushed by religious conservatives. It wasn’t religious conservatives who’ve told me I’m breaking the law if I light up in a bar. It wasn’t religious conservatives who’ve forbidden me from buying food made with trans fats. It wasn’t religious conservatives who pushed speech codes on our college campuses and dictate hate crimes laws. It wasn’t religious conservatives who’ve made it a bureaucratic journey to buy a gun to protect my home and family. It isn’t religious conservatives I see trying to revive the fairness doctrine to specifically silence their political opposition. It wasn’t religious conservatives to gave us “campaign finance reform”. It isn’t the religious conservatives who have told me that I have to separate my trash, even to the point of removing individual trashcans in my office building.

Put bluntly, I can’t help but feel I’m being sold a bill of goods here. Progressives, with the full consent of moderates,…chip away consistently and unabashedly at my freedom. All the while, telling me how scared I should be of the religious conservative bogeyman hiding under the bed. Do I think there’s some religious conservatives who go over the top? Sure. But, marginalizing the religious conservatives en masse is a surefire way to empower just those religious conservatives who do go over the top. Moreover, I’m getting a little more than tired of being told to be scared about the threat to my liberty posed by my allies by people whose own behavior tells me they want nothing more than to restrict my freedom.

Emphasis added.

The issue, my friends, is freedom. This guy gets it.

Let me repeat, I, as a gay man, have no problem working in a political coalition with social conservatives so long as they don’t force me to promote legislation restricting freedom nor demand I enter some kind of ministry to “cure” me of my longings for affection with my own gender. Leave these people alone to practice their faith as they believe Scripture dictates. And leave me alone to interpret the same Scripture (or at least the first two-thirds thereof) in my own way.

And leave those who don’t hold to that Scripture free as well to live their lives as they see fit.

The issue is freedom. And in this age of increasing government control, we need focus on defending it.

Share

74 Comments

  1. I agree with the posting about the intolerant left and the limits they have placed on our freedoms, regardless of our sexual orientation; I do, however, have issues with the social conservatives.

    I found it interesting that a margin of 1.6 million voters in CA resulted in passage of the ban on same-sex marriage yet Obama carried the state by an overwhelming margin. Social conservatives always profess that most Americans support conservative values; however, the reality is that while this may be true, when those values collide with personal reality, personal reality seems to prevail. Those 1.6 million voters probably do oppose same-sex marriage but when you’re about to lose your job, your home, or don’t have health insurance suddenly opposing same-sex marriage isn’t that big of a deal. Had those 1.6 million voters voted their values as opposed to their reality, then McCain would have carried CA.

    The values social conservatives espouse – especially around same-sex couples – often lack compassion for people. Let’s protect the unborn child but it’s better for an abused living child to sleep on the floor at Child Protective Services than in a home of a loving gay couple.

    Comment by txguy_va — November 26, 2008 @ 10:55 am - November 26, 2008

  2. This is very well said and timely. My husband and I were just having a discussion about this very subject and I was complaining about the religious right’s influence in the Republican party and my Libertarian conversion 10 years ago because of it. Your quote really hit home for me and made me rethink my position. The bottom line for me is personal freedom and as little as possible government intrusion in my life and you/OP is so right that it isn’t the religious right that is trying to micromanage my life. Thanks for sharing this. Happy Thanksgiving!

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — November 26, 2008 @ 11:27 am - November 26, 2008

  3. I read this site occasionally to find out what the gay conservative dreamers are thing.
    I n this post you state:
    “..have no problem working in a political coalition with social conservatives so long as they don’t force me to promote legislation restricting freedom nor demand I enter some kind of ministry to “cure” me of my longings for affection with my own gender.”..

    Apparently you don’t understand. THEY will NEVER stop trying to force you to their bigoted positions and beliefs. They are not interested in freedom. The are only interested in control and greed just as all “Conservatives” and religionists are.
    It is difficult to understand why people continue to work against their own interests in spite of much evidence against them. Delusion???

    Comment by Bill Brown — November 26, 2008 @ 11:44 am - November 26, 2008

  4. Delusion, Bill? Did you even read the passage I quoted above, even just, say, the parts I highlighted?

    You claim they’re not interested in freedom that they–and other conservatives–are interested in control, yet provide no evidence of their efforts to limit our freedom or offer accounts of your experience with such supposed tyrants.

    Wanna reference some actual proposals they put forward to limit our freedom as the man I quoted references from those on the left?

    Who’s deluded, Bill?

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 26, 2008 @ 12:28 pm - November 26, 2008

  5. Progressives, with the full consent of moderates,…chip away consistently and unabashedly at my freedom.

    And that should be the rallying cry to unite the Right.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2008 @ 12:39 pm - November 26, 2008

  6. How about proposals to subsidize religious institutions based upon the premise that they work so much better than state-run institutions, forgetting the primary reason they work is that they’re not state-run?

    How about drug laws that criminalize possession of minimal amounts of illicit substances together with the minimum sentence laws that place offenders together with the violent, thus overwhelming our prison sytems?

    How about school vouchers for religious schools, thereby giving the state the ability to withhold funds if certain curricula requirements aren’t met — to be determined by some bureaucrat hostile to religion?

    How about allowing explicitly religious organizations such as churches to remain tax exempt and extending that allowance to include businesses such as auto repair, accounting, construction, landscaping (while non-religious-affiliated businesses must pay their taxes) — as long as they are called “ministries”?

    But I’m probably delusional.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 26, 2008 @ 12:54 pm - November 26, 2008

  7. Delusional? Maybe. Missing the point, definitely.

    The secular left has done much more to limit individual freedom than the religious right… to the point where people living in the Bible Belt have less restrictions on their lives and lifestyles on a day-to-day basis than people living in New York or California.

    A gay bar is many times more likely to be shut down in New York City by a petty bureaucrat for a minor health code violation than by a morally offended baptist in Nashville.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2008 @ 1:16 pm - November 26, 2008

  8. Ignatius

    1) You mean allowing private institutions to have access to a cash flow like ACORN and Planned Parenthood, and not discriminating becasue they’re religious? Or are you saying we should remove government subsidies of the secular organizations.

    2) Not sure how this is relevant, except that social conservatives try to live by rules, sometimes fail, and forgive.

    3) It’s the school’s choice if to accept it or not. Check the history of DeVry to see hoops they had to jump through, and religion wasn’t involved

    4) Huh?

    Comment by The Livewire — November 26, 2008 @ 1:35 pm - November 26, 2008

  9. “Wanna reference some actual proposals they put forward to limit our freedom as the man I quoted references from those on the left?”

    Do you mean “our” as in gay specific proposals?:

    Um, don’t get married. Don’t engage in gay sex (see Texas). Don’t adopt children (see Florida). Don’t adopt children if you have a live in partner (see other southern states). Don’t have a military career. Don’t be a teacher. Don’t be a scout leader.

    Oh, and there is the whole “you are choosing a life of sin and making Jesus cry” aspect of it.

    Or are you talking about the general freedoms religious conservatives have taken away or would take away if they could?

    ‘Cause there are shit tons of those too.

    Comment by seattle slough — November 26, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - November 26, 2008

  10. This definition of freedom as based around smoking in bars, eating trans fats and separating recycling is shameful to the very notion of freedom. If this is what conservatives means when they speak of freedom, then conservatism is shown as nothing more than the most puerile materialism. Patriots died, bravely and willingly, to create the path towards freedom in this country – freedom of conscience and dissent. To make use of this freedom nowadays requires only the most basic modicum of courage, the courage to present ideas and accept criticism. That is so little a sacrifice that it doesn’t even deserve the word. But this idea of freedom you promulgate, well, you should be ashamed to use the word. Freedom to shop is what it really boils down to, and that’s just slavery. Conservatives need to grow a pair.

    Comment by The Third Policeman — November 26, 2008 @ 2:16 pm - November 26, 2008

  11. Well…..why does this post make me think of “Jews for Hitler”?

    You equate the public’s health regulations with Civil Rights? You mean if Rosa Parks only wanted to light up in the front of the bus, it would have been no problem? No, there would still have been a problem. That problem is she was trying to sit IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS!

    Gays & Lesbians deserve the right to marry whom they want. Conservatives don’t deserve to be able to stop them. Gays & Lesbians don’t want Special rights. They want the same rights.

    Comment by kindness — November 26, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - November 26, 2008

  12. So you’ll give up the right to marry as long as nobody bothers you about trans fats?

    pretzel logic from a sad, sad man…

    Comment by mediajunk — November 26, 2008 @ 2:34 pm - November 26, 2008

  13. Apparently you don’t understand. THEY will NEVER stop trying to force you to their bigoted positions and beliefs. They are not interested in freedom. The are only interested in control and greed just as all “Conservatives” and religionists are.
    It is difficult to understand why people continue to work against their own interests in spite of much evidence against them. Delusion???

    I think the major problem conservatives face is not that most people oppose their views, but rather, many if not most oppose what is really a strawman caricature of said views as exemplified by this comment. As the socially conservative, practicing Catholic linked to by the Gay patriot, I can re-iterate that I have absolutely no desire to “re-educate” the man, nor do I have any need to send the sex police over to his house and lock him up.

    Look, I would not argue that there are some conservatives who do seek to exert such control, but to say they are a minority within the conservative movement is to exaggerate their influence.

    Comment by crankycon — November 26, 2008 @ 2:55 pm - November 26, 2008

  14. So smoking in a bar or eating trans-fats are more important to you than freedom of speech, or the freedom to marry, or any other actual freedoms. Shallow? Yes.

    And leave those who don’t hold to that Scripture free as well to live their lives as they see fit.

    That statement pretty much indicates you’re not in favor of Prop. 8. Or that you’re such an incredible hypocrite you can’t even perceive it.

    You might want to re-examine your concept of “freedom.”

    Comment by M. Bouffant — November 26, 2008 @ 3:02 pm - November 26, 2008

  15. How do you know religious conservatives weren’t involved in any of Bill Dalasio’s parade of horribles? He just makes a naked assertion that all religious conservatives conform to some mental caricature he has of them but provides no evidence to support it.

    Seems kind of insulting to religious conservatives. But unlike Bill Dalasio I can’t claim to understand how every single one of them thinks.

    Comment by Rusty Shackleford — November 26, 2008 @ 3:21 pm - November 26, 2008

  16. from the Salt Lake City Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11044660?source=rss

    – In some minds, the so-called “Mormon moment” heralded at the start of 2008 has stopped short. Just 10 months after the death of LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, who spent nearly 70 years burnishing his church’s public image, goodwill toward Mormonism that culminated during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games seems to have faded in a haze of misunderstanding and outright hostility.

    Mean-spirited critiques of Mormonism during Mitt Romney’s unsuccessful presidential campaign were followed by persistent news-media reports linking Latter-day Saints to the FLDS polygamous sect raided by Texas authorities. Now, angry opponents of Proposition 8 are demonstrating at Mormon temples, accusing the church of being anti-gay. –

    During the early stages of the Yes on 8 campaign, there was David Benkof and his ‘GAYS DEFEND MARRIGE’ blog. David packed up his toys and went off to pout, but he was justified, for the YES folk told him NO JEWS. But then more money was needed for the YES campaign and the YES folk selected and accepted the MORMONS and their monies to continue the battle, but only as a tactical ally. When the shit hit the preferbable (sp) fan, guess who is sitting back and watching in delight.

    Yes you have it, the wonderful Alliance Defense Fund ADF is sitting back watching the intended consequences of folk going after the Mormons, and . . .

    well these are the allies(ADF) you are speaking of ‘tying the knot’ with to bring freedom.

    Dan, you seem so delighted when you share your stories of your neices and nephews. And I, too, revel in the wonder of children. But with the new law banning Gays and Lesbians from adopting in ARK , and on the other side the recent win in Florida allowing for gay folk being able to adopt,

    Where do you think ‘Social Conservatives’ will draw the in the sand when it comes to freedoms, in keeping your future freedoms, including being a potential parent, be it foster parent, adoptive parent or even bio parent?

    Comment by rusty — November 26, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - November 26, 2008

  17. Um, media junk, why must you insult? Guess it’s because you can’t make an argument.

    Giving up on the “right” to marry? Um, do you even know what a “right” is? Guess not, because gays do have the right to marry. We just don’t get government recognition of our unions as such.

    And there’s more to the comment I quoted than just laws banning trans fats. The attempt to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would go a long way to curtailing freedom of speech.

    And seattle slough, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, social conservatives can’t take away the freedom to have sex. As to being a scout leader, um, whose freedom are we talking about? Recall, the Boy Scouts are a private organization and should have the freedom to determine who leads their troops. I do disagree with the choice they have made, but they’re not a government entity.

    Seems all too many on the left seems to have an Orwellian notion of freedom, that private organizations can’t determine their own membership.

    Third Policeman, shameful notion of freedom? Huh? Freedom means freedom. Do you even know what freedom is? Do you even understand the point I made? Or do you just have some need to inveigh against conservatives? You chip away at one freedom (to allow private establishments the choice to decide whether or not people can smoke in their premises), soon you’re making excuses to limit even more freedoms.

    It seems my critics here would rather insult conservatives (and this blogger) than actually consider my points.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 26, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - November 26, 2008

  18. But GPW what about the freedom to form a family? What about the freedom to partner up and seek personal happiness, without the controls set out by a minority group of folk with extreme ‘faith-based’ beliefs?
    I spent the other day with some time on my hands and watched the movie ‘Mississippi Burning’, and that evening, I went and saw ‘the Secret Lives of Bees’ and today on the eve of Thanksgiving, I am thankful for being able to live in the USA. and I am thankful for my partner, my family, and my friends.

    Friday, I will see MILK, and I will continue to look to tomorrow for the change that is germinating.

    Comment by rusty — November 26, 2008 @ 4:15 pm - November 26, 2008

  19. Rusty, we have that freedom. We just don’t get state recognition for our partnerships in most states.

    It’s why I repeatedly distinguish between a “right” and a benefit when blogging on gay marriage.

    Glad you’re thankful for living here. As am I. :-)

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 26, 2008 @ 4:32 pm - November 26, 2008

  20. Excellent points here–and an excellent blog!
    As a confirmed traditionalist, I hold opinions offensive to both the right and the left.
    I came, however, to the realization that of all the times I have felt that my freedom of speech is being stifled, it is most often when I espouse opinions which offend the “liberal” orthodoxy.
    Likewise, it is so-called “liberals” who react to disagreement with vituperation and even ad baculum attacks. Most conservatives with whom I have a disagreement will simply ask, very politely, “why do you think that?”

    Comment by Wulf — November 26, 2008 @ 4:44 pm - November 26, 2008

  21. Well said GayPatriot. As a member of the conservative Christian “evil” right wing, I agree with what you said. The war between Christians and gays is ridiculous; and unfounded in the Bible. As a whole, we believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Just like we believe that adultery, pre-marital sex, and dishonoring your parents is wrong. That’s it. We don’t believe that gays should be jailed, flogged, or deported any more than we believe that an adulterous hetero should be prosecuted. That’s OK. We believe that gays are wrong in their lifestyle; gays believe that Christians are wrong in there beliefs. That’s OK. We can disagree without hating each other.

    This “war” is one that is wholly instigated by the media. It sells commercials and magazines. Christians who make hate-filled statements make the front page; as do angry, chanting, picketing homosexuals. But the vast majority of Christians, while we disagree with the lifestyle, have no hatred for homosexuals. In fact, the Bible teaches us that above all else we should love people. That includes homosexuals. Most of my friends live lives that I don’t approve of; it’s ok, I love them anyway. (whether they change or not)

    Concerning politics, gay “rights” is but one issue. If there was a gay man (or woman) running for office as a freedom loving, Reagan/Jefferson conservative…. I would vote for them in a second. You gotta work together if you agree on 98% of the issues. Fantastic blog, by the way.

    Comment by CaneZMD — November 26, 2008 @ 5:08 pm - November 26, 2008

  22. but what about the freedom to form a family? why is it that GLBT folk, in some places are being forbidden to adopt? what ’bout the freedom to form a family without the additional time in the courts and additional lawyer fees? what about family leave?

    I am not talking ’bout marriage, I am talking ’bout becoming a parent?

    Where do your Social Conservatives stand on GLBT parenting?

    and that ever present ADF that is anti-semitic? where do think they will draw the line?

    Comment by rusty — November 26, 2008 @ 5:15 pm - November 26, 2008

  23. But GPW what about the freedom to form a family?

    You have the freedom to form whatever family you want. You dont have the “freedom” to force society to value same sex relationships the same way it values the ONLY kind of relationship capable of procreation.

    That the gay left cant figure out that reproduction makes heterosexuality different both biologically and in the eyes of the law is what makes them delusional, not conservatives.

    What about the freedom to partner up and seek personal happiness,

    You have that freedom.

    without the controls set out by a minority group of folk with extreme ‘faith-based’ beliefs?

    Talk about delusion! Rusty, this is a bald faced LIE. #1. Nobody is controlling you, and #2 Over 52% of Californians does not a religious minority make. Thats a MAJORITY, and in liberal, deeply-blue California, its a MAINSTREAM majority.

    Seriously, how on earth do people get this deluded?

    and I will continue to look to tomorrow for the change that is germinating.

    like mold. Change that, according to Obamas own promises, will drastically curtail freedom, not increase it.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 26, 2008 @ 5:18 pm - November 26, 2008

  24. Filtered :(

    Comment by American Elephant — November 26, 2008 @ 5:18 pm - November 26, 2008

  25. Sure they do, pat, sure they do.

    As long as they don’t insist on visiting their partner in the hospital, adopting a child, keeping a job, displaying affection in public and sharing health insurance.

    Comment by mediajunk — November 26, 2008 @ 5:21 pm - November 26, 2008

  26. Ignatus,

    Are those actually your arguments that religious conservatives are trying to limit your freedoms?

    Comment by American Elephant — November 26, 2008 @ 5:24 pm - November 26, 2008

  27. I know anti-religious bigotry exists, but to see it flauted so unapologetically! To see such unsupportable charicatures proffered with such conviction — the jaw drops.

    But hey! It’s ok! theyre not bigotted against any of the cool minorities!

    what dangerous times we live in

    Comment by American Elephant — November 26, 2008 @ 5:37 pm - November 26, 2008

  28. A gay bar is many times more likely to be shut down in New York City by a petty bureaucrat for a minor health code violation than by a morally offended baptist in Nashville.

    Probably. I agree.

    Missing the point, definitely.

    No, but apparently you missed mine. I agree wholeheartedly that the left is guiltier, but GPW exhorted another commenter to come up with examples of limits on liberty that are by and large conservative and I did. It’s not hard to do. We should love freedom enough to fight unwarranted intrusion no matter the source. See, you have to read the thread to get the gist of the conversation.

    Livewire, yes, we should not be subsidizing organizations that are best served with private funding. That I am not in favor of taxes being spent on religious orgs. doesn’t mean I’m anti-religious. Like ripples in a pond, the war on drugs has spawned much bad law — bad because of the intrusions enforcement necessitates. Search and seizure laws, minimum sentencing without regard to circumstances, enforcement with no regard to associated effects of drugs or crimes associated with drugs, and on and on. Yes, an academic institution must apply for federal subsidization and that religious and ostensibly conservative institutions would accept such funds is my point: I don’t blame government as much as those who claim conservatism while hastening the camel’s nose under the tent and getting paid to do it. Tax exemption for businesses by any name other than “ministry” would be rightfully resented by many conservatives, but apparently this isn’t a two-way street. Again, such law is an invitation to government to allow greater control over religious institutions and religious activity, meaning religious freedom.

    Once government (the taxpayer) pays for some thing or service, it has an incentive to control it. It is simply too tempting for many — conservative and liberal — to accept a bit of funding or a little bit of intrusion in the short run. Hillsdale College is a good example of a conservative institution that has refused to take any direct government funding and I admire them. And I’m not even a conservative.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 26, 2008 @ 5:37 pm - November 26, 2008

  29. Shooting for your dreams, pat? Go slower, aim lower. No, SLOWER AND LOWER STILL… in 100 ever-so-polite years, society will meet your bottomed-out expectations.

    I see the BS here about “changing hearts and minds.” A half-ass response only exposes 50 percent of the asses. Let’s not cry for all the hurt feelings caused by the boycotts and the public shamings.

    I know, I know – what about their “fiduciary entitlement”??? At the dead core of libertarianism is the denial of history and a conflation of entitlement, convenience and liberty. Those who cowtow to the monied and religious classes that are a State as powerful as any political body in this country get crumbs and orts.

    That’s why confrontation in public spaces and blows to the balance sheet are the ways to go – meeting “polite” discrimination with threats against status and money is the only reasonable course of action…

    Montgomery? Why take a seat at the front of the bus if they’re willing to let you ride?

    Greenboro? Why sit at the lunch counter if they’ll feed you standing up in the back alley?

    Selma? Why march the Bridge if you’re gonna screw up traffic?

    Heart-to-heart talks with the ignorant has their place, but these tactic you fret about are working: A poll this week said eight percent of Prop 8′s “yes” voters now regret their vote.

    Comment by mediajunk — November 26, 2008 @ 5:49 pm - November 26, 2008

  30. I see the BS here about “changing hearts and minds.” A half-ass response only exposes 50 percent of the asses. Let’s not cry for all the hurt feelings caused by the boycotts and the public shamings.

    I know, I know – what about their “fiduciary entitlement”??? At the dead core of libertarianism is the denial of history and a conflation of entitlement, convenience and liberty. Those who cowtow to the monied and religious classes that are a State as powerful as any political body in this country get crumbs and orts.

    That’s why confrontation in public spaces and blows to the balance sheet are the ways to go – meeting “polite” discrimination with threats against status and money is the only reasonable course of action…

    Montgomery? Why take a seat at the front of the bus if they’re willing to let you ride?

    Greenboro? Why sit at the lunch counter if they’ll feed you standing up in the back alley?

    Selma? Why march the Bridge if you’re gonna screw up traffic?

    Heart-to-heart talks with the ignorant has their place, but these tactic you fret about are working: A poll this week said eight percent of Prop 8′s “yes” voters now regret their vote.

    Shooting for your dreams, pat? Go slower, aim lower. No, SLOWER AND LOWER STILL… in 100 ever-so-polite years, society will meet your bottomed-out expectations.

    Comment by mediajunk — November 26, 2008 @ 5:53 pm - November 26, 2008

  31. Heart-to-heart talks with the ignorant haves their place, gaypat, but these tactic you fret about are working: A poll this week said eight percent of Prop 8’s “yes” voters now regret their vote.

    Comment by mediajunk — November 26, 2008 @ 6:04 pm - November 26, 2008

  32. I love it. We’ve got posts 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 22, and 24 all saying that they are perfectly okay with the heavy hand of government controlling personal behavior… as long as it is enforcing their set of values.

    Thanks, left-wing Borg! You could not have illustrated the point better!

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2008 @ 6:14 pm - November 26, 2008

  33. Mediajunk, just curious, why do you feel the need to insult me to make your point? And where, pray tell, is my logic “pretzel”-like.

    I mean, I support a party whose broad political agenda includes a strong national defense, judicial restraint and smaller government. Why should it bother me to team up with people who support that agenda even if I do not share their social attitudes?

    Just curious.

    I wouldn’t put much stock in that poll. For state ballot initiatives, the final tally for the “Yes” side rarely exceeds its percentage in the last poll taken as undecideds tends to break for the “No” side. Not so in this case. Polls on ballot measures defining marriage routinely undercount those who support the traditional definition.

    I know this is only anecdotal, but I have received a handful of e-mails from people who voted “No” who said they would have voted “Yes” had then been aware such rallies would follow the proposition’s passage.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 26, 2008 @ 6:37 pm - November 26, 2008

  34. “what dangerous times we live in”

    Indeed they are, and LGBT folk are in the crosshairs. Don’t believe it, who cares, neither did Bambie’s mother. Ah, but in that case, you as another deer would have pushed her in front of the bullet to save your own hide. You have plenty of opportunities to investigate the claims some of us make about parts of the extremist right yet you choose not to. Easier to scoff and call people names isn’t it?

    Comment by Dave — November 26, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - November 26, 2008

  35. Who are talking to, Dave? Why need I investigate the claims some of you make about what you call “parts” (you word not mine of the “extremist right.” We’ve never denied that there are nutbags out there. Since others do that, I point out what others gay bloggers ignore, the intolerance and just plain mean-spiritedness of certain segments of the gay left.

    You accuse us of calling names when you’re busy leveling insults, suggesitng we’d have pushed another “deer” in front of the bullet to save our own hide? Any evidence for that save your own imagination and ignorance?

    I’ve met a lot of social conservatives in my experience as a gay Republican. And none of them have been as rude to me as have been certain (but fortunately not all) gay leftists upon learning I’m a Republican.

    I guess your comment does prove that you would rather scoff and call people names than actually engage us.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 26, 2008 @ 7:03 pm - November 26, 2008

  36. Easier to scoff and call people names isn’t it?

    It’s also easier to make up claims about the right that don’t actually exist and then punk out when asked to provide proof… like those sold-out Christian Pride camps that celebrate the extermination of gheys you were on about some weeks back.

    The overwhelming majority of the freedoms that have been lost or restricted… the right to eat the foods we want, to own guns for self-defense, for businesses to hire and employ people of their own choosing, to use property in the way we choose, to have toilets that flush properly, to drive the vehicles we want… have all been diminished because of the left, not the right.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2008 @ 7:05 pm - November 26, 2008

  37. You have plenty of opportunities to investigate the claims some of us make about parts of the extremist right yet you choose not to.

    Again, it is hilarious to watch gays like Dave whine and scream about the “extremist right” while fully endorsing and supporting the Democrat Party and its endorsement of exactly the “extremists” about which they claim to be upset.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2008 @ 7:17 pm - November 26, 2008

  38. Filtered, GPW.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2008 @ 7:18 pm - November 26, 2008

  39. That’s right. Gay liberals claimed that “internment camps” were being constructed for gays over four years ago.

    When do mediajunk, kindness, and adDave intend to bring us proof of them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2008 @ 7:23 pm - November 26, 2008

  40. I’ve met a lot of social conservatives in my experience as a gay Republican. And none of them have been as rude to me as have been certain (but fortunately not all) gay leftists upon learning I’m a Republican.

    You’re useful to the former and actively involved in oppressing the latter via your affiliation. Not hard to figure out.

    You don’t have to be in the Republican party to dislike taxes.

    Comment by Righteous Bubba — November 26, 2008 @ 8:09 pm - November 26, 2008

  41. I am one of those “Bigoted” people that do not care who you kiss, But I also believe that there is nothing wrong with Domestic Partnerships. They give the Parties all the benefits of Marriage without the Title.
    The GLBT activists want to force their agenda of Equivalancy upon everyone else. It is ironic that
    people from the Liberal side are now so upset that a Ballot Initiative has been used to Curtail someone’s rights. Be careful of the tool you use for it may someday be used against you.

    Comment by ExMoMo — November 26, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - November 26, 2008

  42. You’re useful to the former and actively involved in oppressing the latter via your affiliation.

    Again, Bubba, given that gay liberals openly support and endorse FMA supporters and workplace discrimination against gays, what exactly do you consider “oppression”?

    Answer: The existence of gay people who expose your belief that sexual orientation requires you to be liberal and Democrat as the irrational conceit it is, thus requiring you to actually think and defend your behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2008 @ 8:23 pm - November 26, 2008

  43. I think I’ve tried to make this point in the past – that our liberty is better protected by conservatism (with all its problems) than by liberalism (aka progressivism).

    To see where progressivism is headed, one only need to read about people being tried iby “human rights tribunals” in Canada the continuous assaults on western civilization by governments in Europe.

    And, yes, restricting little freedoms (like smoking or buying food with trans fats) makes it that much easier to start working on the more important freedoms.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 26, 2008 @ 8:38 pm - November 26, 2008

  44. Since someone brought up “Jewish Nazis”, I’d like to clarify. There were such people in Nazi Germany, today they would be extreme liberals. These were people who made a deal with the devil – they would work for the Nazis in hopes that would save their own hides.

    Many worked in concentration camps and were just as cruel as the German or Polish (since the Germans put most of their camps in Poland) camp wardens. Of course the Jews they were dealing with weren’t their neighbors – but Jews from other countries – so it was easier to view them as inferior.

    Guess what happened to most of these people? When the Nazis felt their usefulness was over – they were sent to the ovens along with the people they helped control all those years.

    When facing evil it is a better idea to oppose it than to try and bargain with it.
    Not a single social conservative in this country comes close to the Nazis. I may disagree with some of their beliefs, but they are not evil, contrary to what the Left would like to believe.

    Comment by Leah — November 26, 2008 @ 8:54 pm - November 26, 2008

  45. That favorite institution of the progressives, the UN, has adopted a “Combating Defamation of Religions” resolution (the religions protected being Islam, Islam, and Islam).

    Walter Olson writes: “Say what you will about the major Religious Right groups in the U.S., they’ve mostly come down strongly on the right side of this particular issue.”

    http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=134

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 26, 2008 @ 9:02 pm - November 26, 2008

  46. Again, Bubba, given that gay liberals openly support and endorse FMA supporters and workplace discrimination against gays, what exactly do you consider “oppression”?

    Oh please. Check out the Republican party platform and compare it to the Democratic one and it’s pretty clear which one serves the dreaded agenda. That you can cherry-pick is evidence that EVERYBODY can use a push. And again, nobody has to be a Republican to piss and moan about smoking laws: you CHOOSE to be part of the stupid party.

    Comment by Righteous Bubba — November 26, 2008 @ 10:05 pm - November 26, 2008

  47. Check out the Republican party platform and compare it to the Democratic one and it’s pretty clear which one serves the dreaded agenda. That you can cherry-pick is evidence that EVERYBODY can use a push.

    Or, put differently, that the behavior that disqualifies Republicans in your consideration doesn’t disqualify Democrats when they actually practice it.

    As for the platform, does it say that the Democrat Party supports bans on marriage and workplace discrimination against gays? Because if it doesn’t, you might have to admit, given those examples, that the Democrat Party says one thing in its platform and practices quite another.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2008 @ 10:36 pm - November 26, 2008

  48. Because if it doesn’t, you might have to admit, given those examples, that the Democrat Party says one thing in its platform and practices quite another.

    Therefore Jeffrey Dahmer is evidence that homosexuals are cannibals.

    Comment by Righteous Bubba — November 26, 2008 @ 10:44 pm - November 26, 2008

  49. #35 GPW I was speaking to AE, not you – you are rational

    #36 VtheK those comments were fully explained, deal with it.

    #44
    “they would work for the Nazis in hopes that would save their own hides”

    Log Cabin Republicans will get those ovens heated right up.

    “When facing evil it is a better idea to oppose it than to try and bargain with it.”

    Exactly which it is why it is so distressing to read the consistent refusal to even take a look behind the facade of the “christian” right.

    Comment by Dave — November 26, 2008 @ 11:28 pm - November 26, 2008

  50. Therefore Jeffrey Dahmer is evidence that homosexuals are cannibals.

    Evidence, yes; complete proof, no. However, if Jeffrey Dahmer were the head of the Democrat Party, or if he and several other gay cannibals were heading major gay organizations that endorsed and pushed cannibalism supporters, you could make a very strong case of your point.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 26, 2008 @ 11:40 pm - November 26, 2008

  51. Evidence, yes; complete proof, no.

    Duh.

    Comment by Righteous Bubba — November 27, 2008 @ 12:45 am - November 27, 2008

  52. Thank you for this post, GPW. I appreciate the clarity with which you see America and the Republican Party. As an evil, socon, Christianist theocrat I welcome your help in returning America to a ‘new birth of freedom’ as I believe Reagan called it. I also admire your calm patience in dealing with the willfully paranoid.

    I do remember one gay guy telling me Bush was building concentration camps. Naturally, I laughed. Naturally, I brought this up after the election, and him not on a cattle car or anything. Naturally, he ignored me.

    I hope you sway many others into realizing that if you like liberty, thank a Baptist is not an unreasonable sentiment. If the socons succeed in their attempt, with aid from noble allies like GPW, in retaking their party from the Beltway Boys, we shall see an expansion of freedom. And hopefully, we can see an upsurge of courtesy after the Left is squelched.

    Comment by Tennwriter — November 27, 2008 @ 1:06 am - November 27, 2008

  53. I don’t recall anywhere in the Constitution that gives the right to marriage to just any combination of people. I also don’t recall that it gives the right to anyone to adopt children. If my gay conservative friends here wish to change society’s opinion, that’s entirely their right. However, it is silly to insist that it is somehow an inherent “right”. I could assert all sorts of things which I personally want, but that doesn’t make them “rights”. Seems to me that’s what the left does constantly, such as asserting a right to home ownership, a right to free health care, a right to never be offended, etc.

    Is it possible to not be offended by people who do not wish to use the same word, “marriage” to mean two entirely different states? I would love to have honest disagreement without having the other party insist I would lynch them if I had my way. And considering that I have friends and family members who are gay, I would indeed prefer that they make vows to each other and live in a committed way, with legal contracts, civil unions, whatever. Does my not wishing to use the word “marriage” for that make me an intolerant person?

    Most of you here understand what I’m saying. This is a plea to stop assuming the worst of people with a different attitude. It is the demand for marriage and parenthood to be changed radically in nature which is in this nation so far a government intrusion, especially when coming from the federal court system. Resisting the imposition of this newly-invented “right” does not constitute an attempt to institute some new sort of government control.

    As far as gay adoption is concerned, if one wishes to promote this, the best advice I can give is to do everything possible to encourage women with unwanted pregnancies to carry full term and give up the children for adoption. One of the most convicting pieces of information given me some 16 years ago (when I was still pro-choice) was when I learned that the number of people on waiting lists for adopting babies was roughly equal to that of abortions performed each year. The fact is, many couples these days have to go to China, Colombia, etc. to find babies to adopt. If there were an abundance of children in need of parenting, you might find there would be some relaxed restrictions here. As a Christian conservative, I would be very surprised if any of the other Christians I know would prefer a baby to be aborted than to be adopted by a same-sex couple!

    Ignatius, you have now alluded to government misdeeds with respect to drug enforcement. I would be interested in your expounding on this subject, since I have no knowledge here. As a teenager, I worked as a file clerk in a trial law firm. I remember my boss explaining how financial institutions had influenced legislators so that the penalties for things like check-forging, etc. had much stiffer penalties than assault and battery, and other things which physically harm people. There is so much wrong with our criminal justice system, I’ve pretty much written it off as totally ineffective ages ago. In some cities, violent drug dealers are let go without arrest repeatedly because of civil rights leaders who go down to the police station and holler about racism. The poor folks who live in those neighborhoods are then left unprotected to be preyed upon by these criminals despite their desire to raise healthy families. And of course, there was the famous lady with the $4 million award from McDonald’s for an overly hot cup of coffee, the woman in Cleveland who sued the city for $2 million because some city construction workers were peeking at her in the restroom. Please! I may value privacy, but I’m not sure anyone’s privacy is worth this much! What can I say, some people work for money, others just sue.

    Comment by Vivian — November 27, 2008 @ 1:24 am - November 27, 2008

  54. Indeed they are, and LGBT folk are in the crosshairs.

    Is this A Differently Abled Dave? Either way, could you possibly be a more hysterical drama queen? You see, gays are the one demanding everyone else bend to their wishes, not religious conservatives.

    You have plenty of opportunities to investigate the claims some of us make about parts of the extremist right yet you choose not to.

    I dont need to investigate. Unlike you, I actually associate with them. I talk to them and know what they believe and what they want. You invent monsters.

    Its amazing how similar your descriptions of the religious right are to historical and present descriptions of Jews. Throw in something about Christians baking gays in pies, and you’ve got it down pat.

    But I thank you for clarifying history for me.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 27, 2008 @ 6:05 am - November 27, 2008

  55. Filtered, GPW.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 27, 2008 @ 6:11 am - November 27, 2008

  56. “When facing evil it is a better idea to oppose it than to try and bargain with it.”

    Exactly which it is why it is so distressing to read the consistent refusal to even take a look behind the facade of the “christian” right.

    Conspiracies and facades! You’re rolling out the dough.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 27, 2008 @ 6:13 am - November 27, 2008

  57. Shorter GPW: Inconveniencing me is the same as fascism. Denying me basic rights accorded to others because I am gay is American. Time to sit down children and let the adults run things for a while…

    Comment by jjcomet — November 27, 2008 @ 9:46 am - November 27, 2008

  58. “Rusty, we have that freedom. We just don’t get state recognition for our partnerships in most states. It’s why I repeatedly distinguish between a “right” and a benefit when blogging on gay marriage.”

    I always thought the difference between a right and a benefit was that the former was assumed to apply to all people by virtue of citizenship while the latter was something earned, over and above those basic rights. Please tell me what straight people did to enjoy the “benefit” of state recognition for their marriages that gays have failed to do. What have straight folks done to earn the “benefit” of being able to adopt a child?

    And BTW, Wulf – please learn what “freedom of speech” means. If I hear one more person claim that his or her freedom of speech is being abridged by people criticizing their opinions, I think I’m going to scream. How in hell can you discuss civil liberties or rights when you don’t even understand the freakin’ document on which those rights are based?

    Comment by jjcomet — November 27, 2008 @ 9:56 am - November 27, 2008

  59. #36 VtheK those comments were fully explained, deal with it.

    Um… no. You claimed that your explanations were eaten by the Spam filter. When I suggested you repost them to NDT’s blog (where there is no Spam filter), you summarily dropped the subject.

    Comment by V the K — November 27, 2008 @ 10:21 am - November 27, 2008

  60. reading this thread reminds me. “Conservatives think Liberals are misguided. Liberals think Republicans are EVIL.”

    Ovens indeed. Pop quiz, which party wants to meet uncoditionally with world leaders who hang/stone/crush homosexuals? Which party leaders -have-?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2008 @ 10:51 am - November 27, 2008

  61. Thanks for the reply ignatius,

    I’d prefer to see the government get out of the social business entirely. I’ve never understood medicaid for example. Lets take revenue in, then give it out to the states to manage their own programs. Why not let the states just handle it all themselves?

    But until that happy day comes, I don’t see the logic in excluding the religious groups just because they’re religious. Let them get off the trough if the strings become too tight, to mix a metaphor.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 27, 2008 @ 12:49 pm - November 27, 2008

  62. Time to sit down children and let the adults run things for a while

    unfortunately, the children, after a prolonged temper tantrum, are taking over.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 27, 2008 @ 5:54 pm - November 27, 2008

  63. Please tell me what straight people did to enjoy the “benefit” of state recognition for their marriages that gays have failed to do.

    They had children together.

    What have straight folks done to earn the “benefit” of being able to adopt a child?

    An adoptive mother and father are the closest available facsimile to a biological mother and father.

    It really shows how actively the left has worked to delude themselves and how deeply their denial runs that they need these simple truths explained to them.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 27, 2008 @ 6:02 pm - November 27, 2008

  64. “They had children together.”

    Why, then, are elderly couples allowed to marry? They won’t be having children together anytime soon.

    Why are couples who have agreed never to have children allowed to marry?

    Comment by unclemike — November 27, 2008 @ 11:42 pm - November 27, 2008

  65. [...] intimately familiar with the real comic genius when it comes to the true meaning of Thanksgiving, GayPatriotWest, who really has no clue how funny he [...]

    Pingback by A Feast Was Had | E Pluribus Unum — November 28, 2008 @ 2:44 am - November 28, 2008

  66. [...] intimately familiar with the real comic genius when it comes to the true meaning of Thanksgiving, GayPatriotWest, who really has no clue how funny he [...]

    Pingback by American Street » Blog Archive » A Feast Was Had — November 28, 2008 @ 3:01 am - November 28, 2008

  67. The World Association for Parents and Children is reporting that single-parent adoption is the fastest-growing trend in the adoption field. WACAP works in five countries (Russia, Ethiopia, India, Kazakhstan and the United States) that accept single applicants. From those countries, about 15 percent of the children we have placed in the last four years are in single-parent families.

    Please, Adoption is not subject to a male-female household AE.

    Comment by rusty — November 28, 2008 @ 12:07 pm - November 28, 2008

  68. Why, then, are elderly couples allowed to marry? They won’t be having children together anytime soon.

    Why are couples who have agreed never to have children allowed to marry?

    Because not all heterosexual couples are elderly or childless by choice; these situations are the exception, not the rule. However, every same-sex couple, without exception, is incapable of biologically producing their own children, regardless of age or individual fertility status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 1:01 pm - November 28, 2008

  69. But my question remains–why let the ones who are sterile or incapable of childbirth marry, if marriage’s main benefits are for procreating couples?

    Why let my sterile and childless friends Michael & Katherine marry, while my friends Heather and Renee, who have adopted two children, must remain unmarried? Shouldn’t their children have the benefits of married parents?

    Comment by unclemike — November 28, 2008 @ 4:27 pm - November 28, 2008

  70. Why let my sterile and childless friends Michael & Katherine marry, while my friends Heather and Renee, who have adopted two children, must remain unmarried?

    If you want to ban marriage for sterile couples, go right ahead and propose it. In fact, I challenge gay liberals like unclemike to do that: propose a ban on marriage for all couples incapable of producing children that are biologically theirs.

    Such a ban would starkly illustrate the difference: the vast majority of heterosexual couples would still be able to marry, but not a single gay couple would ever be able to marry. It would put an end to the denial that unclemike and his fellow liberal gays have been practicing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - November 28, 2008

  71. Shouldn’t their children have the benefits of married parents?

    Do you support forcing unmarried parents to marry, then? Or are you simply trying to use and exploit children as hostages?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2008 @ 6:01 pm - November 28, 2008

  72. “I challenge gay liberals like unclemike….” Why do you assume I am a gay liberal? Are only gay liberals interested in seeing their friends married?

    I’m not exploiting their children at all. I’m asking this question because it relates to my experience of their lives: in order to protect themselves, their children, their lives, they have had to (at a cost of thousands and thousands of dollars) hire lawyers, draw up contracts, rights of survivorship, etc.–all things that would be unnecessary with one legal marriage.

    And not all states recognize what they have done, anyway. If one were to get into an accident in another state, the other might not be able to visit her in the hospital. That’s unfair.

    I don’t support forcing anyone to do anything. I support fairness and equality. I support anybody who wants to marry another consenting adult and build a life with him or her. That’s all.

    Comment by unclemike — November 28, 2008 @ 7:43 pm - November 28, 2008

  73. “I challenge gay liberals like unclemike….” Why do you assume I am a gay liberal? Are only gay liberals interested in seeing their friends married?

    Don’t dodge the challenge. If you want to ban marriage for any couple that can’t procreate, go right ahead and do it. After all, if gay couples are identical to heterosexual couples, that wouldn’t affect them at all, now would it?

    I’m not exploiting their children at all. I’m asking this question because it relates to my experience of their lives: in order to protect themselves, their children, their lives, they have had to (at a cost of thousands and thousands of dollars) hire lawyers, draw up contracts, rights of survivorship, etc.–all things that would be unnecessary with one legal marriage.

    More precisely, unnecessary had they been able to produce their own biological children. You seem to be under the delusion that marriage automatically eliminates all the legal procedures around adoption.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2008 @ 2:43 am - November 29, 2008

  74. [...] executed if they do not, we will endorse Gay Patriot for this category. He, at least, is willing to ally with religious conservatives, so that he can smoke in a bar, eat trans-fats, and not have to [...]

    Pingback by The 2008 Weblog Awards: C4C Endorsements « Calvinists 4 Conservatism — January 11, 2009 @ 4:28 am - January 11, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.