Dede’s Out, Lefty Pundit (& Bloggers) on Warpath Against the Stalinist Right-wingers Who Live Inside their Heads
I’ll leave it to other conservative bloggers to analyze the angry ramblings of left-wing bloggers and pundits now that liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her campaign for election to Congress from New York’s 23rd District. Those posts (and column) I’ve read focused not on actual arguments conservatives have been making against the “stimulus” and “card-check” supporting Republican nominee, but on the antics of the conservatives make in the realm of their liberal imagination.
Had Ms. Scozzafava come out against the “stimulus” and card check, had stated clearly she opposes congressional Democrats’ big-spending initiatives and supported free-market reforms similar to those House Republicans have offered, she would not have seen her poll numbers sink as they did and likely would have stood a strong chance at being elected to Congress. Even if she were more liberal on social issues.
This is not about a far right takeover of the GOP. This is not about purging the party of those who differ from its mainstream on social issues. It’s about the spending, stupid.
Government spending has skyrocketed in the nine months since Obama took office, despite that Democrat’s campaign promise of a “net spending cut.” If Dede Scozzafava had put some significant distance between herself and the President’s free-spending Democrats, she would not have seen rank-and-file Republicans desert her in droves. Nor would independent voters be flocking to the Conservative candidate.
And since so many of our critics on the left quite often seem to ignore they points we make, let me repeat myself, borrowing a manner of speaking from the 1992 Clinton campaign, it’s the federal spending, stupid.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Major props to Alex in Denver for boiling our argument down:
Apparently, according to Senatus, one must be focused entirely on gay political issues to be legitimately gay. Sexual attraction to the same sex is not enough. Frankly one of the things I love about this blog is the recognition on the part of the authors that sexual identity is not the same as political identity. That leads to some tough choices: the post about endorsing Hoffman is an example. Ideally we gays who also support economic freedom and strong national security wouldn’t always have to parse our interests that way. However, that interest parsing, prioritizing, and selecting from among imperfect choices is precisely what makes this blog interesting to read.
49 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It should have been pause for concern when this woman received backing from the SEIU, the WFP, and ACORN. Normally, from what I have read, they support Democrat candidates, and of course the more extreme left the better.
In this case the woman has the record of supporting big government and in other words totally ignoring the base of Republican supporters as well as the Independents.
The term DIABLO has been applied to Scozzafava…. I think the term really fitted to a tee.
Comment by straightAussie — November 1, 2009 @ 6:02 am - November 1, 2009
Why do you call this blog GayPatriot? It doesn’t seem like you care at all about gay issues. Maybe you should change the name to ConservativePatriot, you seem to care far more about that issue than anything else.
Dede Scozzafava was the only candidate who supported our community and you are HAPPY she’s gone? Let me remind everyone that Doug Hoffman DOES NOT support gay people in ANY way – he’s against same sex marriage, civil unions, and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. If I’m treated like a second-class citizen by the likes of him, why should I give a flying f**k what the level of “federal spending” is? Again, my wallet is not more important to me than the equal protection of me and my family under the law.
I have tried to be open-minded about the views here, but I just can not wrap my head around this obsession you people have with money. I’d much rather be a modestly-off gay person in a quasi-socialist gay-friendly country like Canada than a filthy-rich socially-despised q***r in the US.
Good luck to all of you, I hope your bank account can shield you from the homophobic hellhole all your conservative “friends” want to turn this country into. If this is this kind of candidate that all this TEA Party agitation promises to produce, I can with confidence say I will NEVER, EVER vote for anyone but a Democrat ever again.
Comment by Senatus — November 1, 2009 @ 7:16 am - November 1, 2009
I think this blog is well written, and gives depth to gay people – that they do no think all alike and have other issues they find important to them other than their sexual identity. I find it intriguing and as a conservative who is not concerned with wealth as much as opportunity and freedom applaud this blog as something unitive among all free adult thinkers regardless of sexual identity.
Comment by Krystal — November 1, 2009 @ 8:21 am - November 1, 2009
There are more gay conservatives than you know. They keep quiet for the same reason that black conservatives keep quiet. They are afraid of the wrath that will be poured out on them from their liberal “friends”. They want you to stay on the plantation and be happy with the crumbs that their Democrat masters promise to bestow on you every election year. Some people are happy being slaves; I am not.
Comment by Mike S — November 1, 2009 @ 9:18 am - November 1, 2009
Senatus,
I think your post says about more about your own hangups than about the blog authors’.
Question of the Day: What good might gay marriage be to you if you’re been reduced to penury due to punitive taxation, inflation-gone-ballistic, and uncontrolled spending?
Ruminate on that, and then report back to the class with your conclusion.
Comment by MarkJ — November 1, 2009 @ 9:27 am - November 1, 2009
I’m not gay, I was, up until last year a lifelong liberal democrat (now an independent). I started reading this blog via the links featured on michellemalkin.com starting a few months back.
To Senatus, frankly, if you believe that gay people’s only concern in life is marriage, abortion and extreme leftist fringe ideology, then you’re a damned fool. Do you believe that those frivolous fripperies, in this economy (no offense) sustain lives, preserve freedoms that once lost will be hard to retain? Or perhaps you believe the far leftist fascists will provide those rights to you as a special protected class??? If so, perhaps you need to pull your head out of your backside and crack open a history book, because people like you have historically lifted fascists to power and then were the first ones cast aside when they no longer were needed.
Comment by Jenny — November 1, 2009 @ 9:28 am - November 1, 2009
Apparently, according to Senatus, one must be focused entirely on gay political issues to be legitimately gay. Sexual attraction to the same sex is not enough. Frankly one of the things I love about this blog is the recognition on the part of the authors that sexual identity is not the same as political identity. That leads to some tough choices: the post about endorsing Hoffman is an example. Ideally we gays who also support economic freedom and strong national security wouldn’t always have to parse our interests that way. However, that interest parsing, prioritizing, and selecting from among imperfect choices is precisely what makes this blog interesting to read.
Comment by Alex in Denver — November 1, 2009 @ 10:32 am - November 1, 2009
In other words, if you are not in sync with the liberal gay agenda 100%, you must not call yourself gay. You are officially banned from gaydom.
In other, other words: It is all about the social issues, stupid.
Comment by heliotrope — November 1, 2009 @ 10:32 am - November 1, 2009
#2: “I have tried to be open-minded about the views here, but I just can not wrap my head around this obsession you people have with money. I’d much rather be a modestly-off gay person in a quasi-socialist gay-friendly country like Canada than a filthy-rich socially-despised q***r in the US.”
Obviously, Senatus. Because if you were capable of being open-minded about the views here, you would at least be able to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding the views of conservative gays before denouncing them as nothing more than an “obsession with money.” What you think you’ve served up as a principled condemnation of us as evil, greedy conservatives that value money over “equality,” I assure you is nothing more than proof of your own profoundly ignorant and pedestrian grasp of what gay conservatives actually believe.
So, well done, Senatus. You’ve managed to condemn beliefs that no one on this blog actually have.
Comment by Sean A — November 1, 2009 @ 10:43 am - November 1, 2009
It’s interesting that the far left care so much about DeDe. I would have thought that some mild amusement that the Republicans got themselves into this mess would have been appropriate. Instead there is a major outburst, as if they were invested in DeDe’s candidacy. How Alinsky-ite would be it be to infiltrate the opposition party? The speed and strength of the response to DeDe’s withdrawal seems to suggest that this is exactly what was and is going on.
Comment by Brian — November 1, 2009 @ 11:13 am - November 1, 2009
Senatus – Doug Hoffman has more in common with Barack Obama than Bill Owens does.
Smoke your pipe on that one.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 1, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - November 1, 2009
Humm…I have to conclude that if Senatus believe that Canada is so open to his “gaydom”, he will soon be relocating to that country. That will make the inside match the outside. Your argument reminds me of the Natives who believe that if you dont live on the reservation, you are not really Native. Furthermore, your argument reminds me of Obama’s crisis mentality – everything is a crisis. In this case, its the “hell hole” that Gays will live in if Conversative Ideology takes over the mainstream.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — November 1, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - November 1, 2009
#8: “In other, other words: It is all about the social issues, stupid.”
I certainly get your point about Senatus, heliotrope, but I think you’re giving him WAAAAAY too much credit. In just a couple of paragraphs he complained of being treated as “a second-class citizen,” claimed that he and is family are denied “equal protection under the law,” implied that gays are “socially-despised” in the US, and stated that all straight conservatives want to turn America into a “homophobic hellhole.”
These are the words of a person who doesn’t even understand the concept of a “social issue.”
Comment by Sean A — November 1, 2009 @ 1:00 pm - November 1, 2009
If it walks like a duck,it quacks like duck, and it looks like a duck that applies to dede, she can be Rosie O’Donnell sister. Luckily we discover who she was before she did us in.
I was born in mexico but I didn’t watch the CNN “latino in America” propaganda report or fly the mexican flag over my house. I would join the minuteman defense force before I would protest for “more” latino rights . I’m american first and believe in the rule of law something the government no longer enforces.
Conservatives share basically the same views whether black,white,gay,men,women there love of america transcends any personal agendas they might have.
Senatus, your statement that you will only vote for a democrat no matter what is a big reason we are in this mess. Your “democrats” will destroy you too along with the rest of us, because they aren’t all gay either. The republicans aren’t any better but they at least will maintain the status quo.
Comment by jonyjoe101 — November 1, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - November 1, 2009
Senatus, why don’t you consider our arguments, like the one offered in our endorsement of Doug Hoffman before highlighting issues where we are at odds with the man we back.
Do you agree with every candidate you support on every issue?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 1, 2009 @ 12:06 pm - November 1, 2009
#15: Dan – I think it’s a good bet that Senatus doesn’t even know how his candidates stand on every issue as long as they embrace the gay left agenda (at least in word, if not deed).
Senatus – the issue to most conservatives is whether or not western civilization is worth defending. Many countries in Europe (and Canada to some extent) have decided that it’s not worth defending… that our culture and values are not superior to any others. So they’ve embraced the socialist welfare state and multiculturalism (from gay rights to sharia).
The welfare state isn’t sustainable and multiculturalism is not compatible with a (classical) liberal representative democracy.
I base my support for conservative candidates on the fact that, in the long run, I will fare far better in a system where western culture is defended than in a system that lacks the guts to defend itself against those who would destroy it.
It’s my guess that there are far more places in The Netherlands or in the UK where a gay man or woman would be crazy to venture into than there are in the Bible Belt.
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 1, 2009 @ 1:35 pm - November 1, 2009
Liberals don’t support gays–liberals support sexual liberationists. Stonewall wasn’t about gays–it was about sexual liberationists who wanted to free the world from the patriarchal oppression of traditional sexual morality. It had nothing AT ALL to do with an inborn attraction to men.
Gay history shows that, unlike today’s so-called “gay community,” most same-sex relationships were far more loyal and monogamous than heterosexual marriages, which were largely for social and class reasons. Male relationships were marked by what Whitman called “adhesion” and Lawrence called “bludbrudershaft.” One thinks of Damon and Pythias and their willingness to die for each other.
Candidates who support traditional values and relationships based on loyalty, monogamy, and public accountability support the essence of what it means to be homosexual and are therefore the “gay” candidate.
I am against any candidate who is going to bring in the amorality and exhibitionism of the default gay community under the misleading heading of “gay marriage.” I want a candidate who will protect all the unborn, including the unborn gays and those with Down’s syndrome, from being aborted by mother’s who just don’t want a gay or imperfect child. I want a candidate to challenge gays into showing that they, too, can live up to the ideal of marriage instead of water down marriage for those who don’t really want it.
Until a liberal shows me that he/she is pro-life and pro-marriage, I am not going to see that candidate as promoting gay issues.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 1, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - November 1, 2009
What I have come to admire about this blog is the fact that it’s writers reflect a respect for all our rights as human beings, something this former lib dem appreciates. I’ve been increasingly fed up over the years, that the far left is seeking to pit us all against each other based on whatever pigeonholes they’ve assigned us to. I believe that those dem voters who are still marching in rigid lockstep with the party, refusing to think and question need to wake up, because they are being used.
Comment by Jenny — November 1, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - November 1, 2009
Remember today’s date, November 1, 2009. It’s the day that Rush Limbaugh officially went on the record to predict that Obama will be a one-term President. That’s good enough for me. Let’s fire up those countdown clocks, boys!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/01/limbaugh-assails-radical-agenda-child-president/
Comment by Sean A — November 1, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - November 1, 2009
Dad’s on wife #5, mom’s on hubby #2 (but only because her b/f of 20 years was married!) – how is it that GAYS will destroy the institution of marriage?
My take on the conservative argument is that I get to live my life my way – I’m not forced into anything (e.g. a health plan?) because liberals think I’m too stupid to make my own choices!
I’m in a stretch-mark of the Bible belt; and I identify as gay – but it’s with a small ‘g’ – it’s part of what makes me unique and not my sole focus. Conservatives celebrate the individual, liberals praise the group identity.
Comment by Jax Dancer — November 1, 2009 @ 2:43 pm - November 1, 2009
I’d much rather be a modestly-off gay person in a quasi-socialist gay-friendly country like Canada than a filthy-rich socially-despised q***r in the US.
Good. The border is right that way. Leave.
Heck, I hear Cuba nationalizes countries, provides free health care to all, and brags about how “gay-friendly” it is — and the weather is much better. Why haven’t you left yet?
But of course you won’t, just like your fellow screaming brats in the gay community who exist only to whine about how awful they have it, but adamantly refuse to move to their socialist paradises because they don’t want to actually have to live under those conditions.
In short, Senatus, if you’d rather be that way, then leave — or shut your worthless fat hypocritical mouth about how awful the United States is. Done with it. Get your worthless pig leftist ass across the border. In fact, I will personally pay for you and ten of your fellow gay leftists to put your lives where your mouths are and move to Cuba.
Don’t want to take me up on that? Then you’re a g.d. hypocrite.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - November 1, 2009
Fixed it for ya.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 1, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - November 1, 2009
NDT, I’ve made that offer–about paying their ticket out to the promised land–as well but for some reason they won’t take me up on it…go figure.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 1, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - November 1, 2009
Gay conservatives, et. al. -
I think I need to apologize for the tone of my earlier post. I was, in hindsight, a little overwrought when I wrote that post, and I’m sorry it came off as rather harsh and blustery.
I guess I just look at politics differently than my fellow gays who are conservative. Our priorities are simply too different, irreconcilable perhaps. Social issues mean far more to me than fiscal or foreign police issues ever will. I know I’m going to look close-minded by saying so, but this is why I could never date a conservative / Republican – the gap in beliefs and expectations is just far too broad, it would poison everything else.
As far as I have been able to observe, both in this country and abroad, it has been center, center-left, liberal, and left-oriented groups that have championed change for the gay community. To be frank, most conservatives frighten me on gay issues. There are a precious few who are able to balance fiscal and national security conservatism with gay-friendliness (or even neutrality), but they are not the norm in my experience.
Why couldn’t Doug Hoffman have just said same-sex marriage / civil unions are a state matter and that he would defer to the Department of Defense on DADT? Would that have affected his conservative bona fides that much? I can’t help but see him as just more of the same anti-gay conservatism I’ve seen in politics all of my adult life. He’s been endorsed by a host of anti-gay religious right groups, from the National Organization for Marriage to Concerned Women for America. If that doesn’t bother you as a gay person, then vote for him – I just would not be able to do it myself, he opposes my way of life, and that just hits too close to home for me.
Comment by Senatus — November 1, 2009 @ 5:42 pm - November 1, 2009
North Dallas Thirty -
I’m not really sure how you made the jump from Canada to Cuba. One is a “social democratic” parliamentary democracy (technically it’s a constitutional monarchy, that’s neither here nor there) and the other is a one-party communist dictatorship. I have no desire to live in a communist country, and a country like Canada or those in Western Europe that embrace a (decidedly lukewarm) form of socialism are not comparable to Cuba or China.
During my college years, I lived for a time in Western Europe (Aix-en-Provence, France) and I have spent a considerable amount of time with a dear friend of mine in Newfoundland. I can’t say my experience in either country was particularly hellish. My friend in Canada is actually an American who quite voluntarily moved there. As a gay man, it’s actually rather nice think that I could go from Halifax to Vancouver and not have worry if my relationship will be challenged should I end up in a hospital, or some other such calamity.
Anyway, if you’d like to foot the bill for me moving to Canada, I wouldn’t mind. My family all live in the Midwest, so Toronto wouldn’t be all that far away from them.
Comment by Senatus — November 1, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - November 1, 2009
To be frank, most conservatives frighten me on gay issues.
I fail to see why.
You have no problem endorsing and supporting bans on gay marriage when Obama Party members do.
You have no problem endorsing and supporting rhetoric against gays when it’s your Obama Party base indulging in it.
And you certainly have no problem with people who not only advocate, but practice, outright murder of gays; indeed, your Obama Party supports people who do that as “moderates”, not terrorists.
So in short, it’s kind of hilarious for you to be frightened of conservatives allegedly wanting to do all of these things when the fact that they’re actually being done within the party you endorse and support doesn’t faze you at all.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - November 1, 2009
Senatus: How does Doug Hoffman oppose your way of life? By opposing the redefinition of marriage? You do realize that you have the Constitutional right to commit your life to the man you love, hold a wedding ceremony in front of your family and friends, call yourself “married,” and live openly and freely as such for as long as you want, and no one, including Doug Hoffman, wants to take that right away from you. By not taking a stand on DADT? I suppose if you are in the military and you are foolish enough to “tell” this might be an impediment to you (and yes, most of us would like to see this Bill Clinton/Democrat policy overturned or revised), but if you are not in the military, then what’s your problem? Honestly, dude, no one on our side is opposing your way of life. So stop whining and get married to a man if you want to or join the military if you have the guts, and otherwise enjoy the magnificent freedom you have in the greatest and most gay-friendly country on earth (thanks in large part to the evangelical Christian conservatives who wrote our Constitution).
Comment by Elephant in the Room — November 1, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - November 1, 2009
I have no desire to live in a communist country
Why not? You’ve already stated that “social issues mean far more to me than fiscal or foreign police issues ever will”, and they’re doing exactly what you want on social issues.
Anyway, if you’d like to foot the bill for me moving to Canada, I wouldn’t mind.
Fine. Go. GPW and GP know how to get hold of me, and Steven’s willing to split the bill. Leave.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - November 1, 2009
#28, oh there are some stipulations A) They can never come back and B) have to sign a paper saying they will never come back which will be notarized and legally documented. It’s a one way ticket with no return and what you take is only what you can carry with you. These people have many options as Senatus has demonstrated for us, we have but one option. I’d leave and surrender it in a minute, if there was another place on earth based in Liberty but alas, there is not one other place on the planet. Therefore, I have to stay and help make sure that the one place that grew from Liberty remains steeped in Liberty.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 1, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - November 1, 2009
Elephant in the Room -
Yes, I certainly could “hold a wedding ceremony in front of your family and friends, call yourself “married,” and live openly and freely as such for as long as you want”. That isn’t going to do me one bit of good when the hospital ignores our power-of-attorney (as happened to the Langbehn-Pond lesbian couple in Florida), or my deceased partner’s family challenges our will or tries to take half our property. Evangelical Christian conservatives don’t care about any of that, because if they give my relationship ANY legal recognition, then they are sinning, and that outweighs anything else to them, fairness or compassion be damned.
As far as these “evangelical Christian conservatives who wrote our Constitution” you seem to idolize, who on earth are they? They certainly aren’t George Washington the Virginia Episcopalian and devoted Freemason, or Benjamin Franklin the Pennsylvania Episcopalian with heavily Deist beliefs, or even James Madison, another Virginia Episcopalian who said: “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. (1819)” That hardly sounds like something Focus on the Family or the Family Research Council (today’s “evangelical Christian conservatives”) would approve of.
And you don’t even want to start on the Declaration of Independence’s author Thomas Jefferson, yet another (rather nominal) Virginia Episcopalian, whose complex views on religion are probably closest to the Deists. Would any “evangelical Christian conservatives” be caught dead saying this: “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. (1820)”
Given that the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) all were written before the Second Great Awakening (1790-1840s), which is usually considered the start of what became modern Evangelical Christianity, it find it dubious to call these great men “evangelical Christian conservatives”. Conservatives they may well have been, but I’d say they would have little in common with the authoritarian evangelical Christian conservatives of today’s America.
Comment by Senatus — November 1, 2009 @ 7:44 pm - November 1, 2009
#25: “As a gay man, it’s actually rather nice think that I could go from Halifax to Vancouver and not have worry if my relationship will be challenged should I end up in a hospital, or some other such calamity.”
Senatus, I assume the “calamity” you’re referring to is being admitted to a Canadian hospital.
Comment by Sean A — November 1, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - November 1, 2009
North Dallas Thirty -
Wow, you seem like a really angry person. Even if I wanted to move to Cuba I don’t speak Spanish and I hate hot weather, so it’s definitely a no-no for me. I do speak French, so perhaps I could move to Québec.
Anyway, I honestly don’t hate the United States, I know you won’t believe me, but I don’t. I actually like a lot of things about our capitalist system, but I’m also realistic enough to not think it’s the be-all-end-all. I know this will sound blasphemous to a conservative, but I also don’t think any country is the “greatest”, even the US. I think it’s unimaginably pompous for Americans to constantly claim we are the “greatest” country ever. I actually do think the ideals of Western Civilization could be considered among if not THE “greatest” and should be defended, but who decided that our nation’s embodiment of Western Civilization is the best?
Sean A -
I just KNEW someone would pick up on that as soon as I posted it. And no, that is not what I meant.
Comment by Senatus — November 1, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - November 1, 2009
Senatus, like most liberals, you are sadly misinformed.
As an evangelical Christian (who also happens to be gay), I can assure you that every Christian I know supports allowing you (as a gay man) to have power of attorney on behalf of your partner in a hospital situation, and in fact, in many (if not most) states, you already have this power. In the few states where the law has not been updated, it is simply a matter of time before it is; and all of this has and will be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage. As for issues of wills, if the will is drawn up properly in the first place, then there is nothing in most states that prevents a transfer of property from one gay partner to another. And again, if there is ambiguity in the law in some states, this is something that can be remedied without resorting to changing the definition of marriage. So if these are the issues you are concerned about, why don’t you ask Doug Hoffman, or any conservative Republican, what they think about changing those particular laws, and I can assure you that you will be pleasantly surprised to find that the vast majority of Republicans will agree with you.
As for the religious affiliation of the Founding Fathers, you have been spoon-fed a lot of anti-Christian propaganda and nonsense by your leftist friends. Every one of the Founding Fathers was a professing Christian of one sort or another (there might have been one or two Deists in the bunch, but this is not as clear as you might think).
Larry Schweikert and others have written persuasively on this topic. Here’s a quote from Schweikert:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413314/posts
“Jefferson wrote in his Bible, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.” Jefferson, we might add, was the chairman of the American Bible Society. Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.””
And then this:
“Had the Founders been subject to the incessant polling we suffer from today, three things are clear: 1) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, characterized the United States as a Christian nation (leaving aside what each interpreted that to mean); 2) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, thought it imperative that leaders display the type of character that sprang from Christianity; and 3) They would have almost certainly unanimously agreed that the “wall of separation” was to prevent one Christian denomination from dominating, and was never intended to be a wedge between the government and Christianity.
And who are these terrible authoritarian evangelicals you speak of? I do not know of a single evangelical leader who wants to take away any of your rights, or see you persecuted in any way. I can think of a few Muslim leaders who want to see you hanged; but trust me, us little ol’ Christians don’t mean you any harm. You need to get past that hysterical and narrow minded stereotype.
Comment by Elephant in the Room — November 1, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - November 1, 2009
With regard to Senatus concerns over gay marriage, I believe as conservatives we all need to take a step back on the issue. A true conservative viewpoint would look at the constitution and see that nowhere is the definition of marriage a concern of the federal government. Marriage has always traditionally been an issue of religion, which, courtesy of the 1st amendment, means you can marry a basketball if that is what drives you.
The problem really comes into play when, like any ‘progressive’ agenda, people are grouped, categorized, and tracked in an effort to make everything ‘fair’ for every group. And with every attempt at ‘fairness’, freedoms are yielded. These days the federal government needs to track marriages for purposes of taxes and for purposes of income redistribution. Beyond that, what business is it of theirs if your God(s) or your heart marries a man/woman/or basketball. We really need to elect leaders who follow the constitution.
Comment by Zug — November 1, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - November 1, 2009
#32: Oh, my mistake. I guess you were referring to the “calamity” of American doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who regard the number one priority of their job as ensuring that ABSOLUTELY no gay person is ever allowed to have any contact whatsoever with their comatose or otherwise seriously injured or ill domestic partner in a hospital. Because, as we all know, that scenario is more commonly encountered in hospitals than gauze. I mean, who among us hasn’t had to witness the heartbreaking, and all-too-common travesty of 7-10 healthcare professionals joining hands to block gay people from seeing their loved ones in a sickening, homophobic game of “red-rover, red-rover, send-that-homo-who-will-never-get-in-to-see-his-dying-domestic-partner-under-any-circumstances ON OVER!”
Comment by Sean A — November 1, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - November 1, 2009
#24: “I think I need to apologize for the tone of my earlier post. I was, in hindsight, a little overwrought when I wrote that post, and I’m sorry it came off as rather harsh and blustery.”
“Harsh” and “blustery”? Don’t be silly, Senatus. Personally, I found your complaints of being treated as “a second-class citizen,” the claim that you and your family are denied “equal protection under the law,” your implication that gays are “socially-despised” in the US, and your statement that all straight conservatives want to turn America into a “homophobic hellhole” to be downright breezy. No apology necessary.
“Social issues mean far more to me than fiscal or foreign police issues ever will.”
Well, Senatus, when you define the issues in a vacuum as having absolutely NOTHING to do with each other and you happen to be too intellectually obtuse to see any overlap between them, then you have no choice but to choose one and reject all others.
“I know I’m going to look close-minded by saying so, but this is why I could never date a conservative / Republican – the gap in beliefs and expectations is just far too broad, it would poison everything else.”
Senatus, you’re not close-minded for making a personal choice that you would never date a conservative/Republican. What makes you close-minded is that you would make that choice having ZERO understanding of the conservative beliefs that would purportedly “poison everything else.” You might as well swear off ever dating Panamanians because their paralyzing phobia of roller derby “would poison everything else.”
“As far as I have been able to observe, both in this country and abroad, it has been center, center-left, liberal, and left-oriented groups that have championed change for the gay community.”
Other than being a “fierce advocate” for gay costume changes, what exactly has Obama changed for the gay community? I agree that he and Bill Clinton both “championed” the repeal of DADT, “championed” marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman, and “championed” the Defense of Marriage Act. But with all that “championing” going on, why is it that you’ve never actually won any of these battles?
“To be frank, most conservatives frighten me on gay issues. There are a precious few who are able to balance fiscal and national security conservatism with gay-friendliness (or even neutrality), but they are not the norm in my experience.”
So, let’s review: Iran hangs gays pursuant to Sharia law in broad daylight (strictly with the humane “dangle and strangle” method) and Iran’s President is welcomed to Columbia University to assure us that gays don’t even exist in his country—big surprise there.)
Bush condemns Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, states unequivocally that Iran WILL NOT be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, and he is condemned by liberals as a war-mongering bully who has no right to say what country can or can’t have nukes.
Obama treats Ahmadinejad as an esteemed diplomat even after Iran is caught lying AGAIN about its on-going nuclear enrichment, says little more than he is “deeply concerned” about “the violence” in Iran after Ahmadinejad steals an election and dispatches his minions to murder protesters in the street, and Obama continues to engage in diplomatic chit-chat while the centrifuges whirl and the country’s representatives scoff publicly at the idea that they would ever give up their nuclear plans.
Any idea which President those dead Iranian gay teens would regard as being more “gay friendly” in their approach to national security?
“If that doesn’t bother you as a gay person, then vote for him – I just would not be able to do it myself, he opposes my way of life, and that just hits too close to home for me.”
No, Senatus. What “hits too close to home” for you is that Hoffman has not ritualistically and affirmatively validated, endorsed, approved, and CHAMPIONED your way of life. And that, in your narcissistic, self-obsessed, insecure world means that he is oppressing you and actively plotting your destruction. In other words, your feelings are hurt and in the absence of an abject apology from Hoffman for the oversight and his personal commitment to tell you on a daily basis that he thinks it’s super-awesome that you’re gay, you have no choice but to fill the black hole of your insecurities with paranoid fantasies of persecution, victimization, and oppression.
Comment by Sean A — November 1, 2009 @ 9:26 pm - November 1, 2009
#2 senatus….I live in rural Pennsylvania in a solidly conservative Republican district. And this is no hellhole here. My neighbors respect me and my family and leave me alone for the most part. (Leaf removal seems to be an annual argument but otherwise…)The liberal Democrat problem is they regard all of America not on the left or right coasts as fly over country full of raging redneck homophobes and racists. It isn’t. It is full of regular people, some gay, trying to live lives safely without govt ruining their freedom and liberty.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 1, 2009 @ 9:50 pm - November 1, 2009
Senatus:
“I think it’s unimaginably pompous for Americans to constantly claim we are the “greatest” country ever.”
America is the greatest for me; otherwise, I would have left it long ago for a more congenial environment. I imagine that’s why people who stay in the areas of the world they are in stay…because it is the greatest for them.* Thank God for choices.
“I actually do think the ideals of Western Civilization could be considered among if not THE “greatest” and should be defended, but who decided that our nation’s embodiment of Western Civilization is the best?”
I don’t want to live in France’s embodiment of Western Civilization or for that matter any European countries embodiment of Western Civilization. I like the American embodiment of Western Civilization and it is why I stay in America. If I didn’t, I’d move. No, no place is perfect; however, I think the American dream, as originally constructed, offers the greatest level of freedom to individuals than any other system that has risen in the western world. So call me pompous all you want.
* Some people don’t have a choice gay Iranians; how unfortunate is that?
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 1, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - November 1, 2009
Alright, that’s it, I give up. Apparently every political belief I have is wrong and worthy of ridicule. Somehow I’m supposed to not let the sexual identity I struggled for fifteen years to come to terms with influence any choice I make in the political realm. Fine, I guess I’ll take my horrible deluded liberal gay self and just move to Canada, or Cuba, or China, or the North Pole, whatever… Since I’m nothing but a “narcissistic, self-obsessed, insecure” little f*g for wishing to be treated with a modicum of respect in this country.
I hope all of you are happy when these wonderful evangelical Christian conservatives who apparently wrote all our founding documents finally turn this country back into a “Christian Nation”, circa 1790. Then you’ll have all the guns, un-taxed income, and sodomy laws you ever dreamed of. Once we deregulate the health insurance market and every insurance company moves to the state that only mandates you cover a runny nose, then my gay brothers and sisters with HIV/AIDS will really get a taste of the mercies of the unfettered free market. I mean, what insurance company in their right mind will cover someone with something as unprofitable as HIV/AIDS? But who knows, maybe we’ll all be rich enough to just pay for treatment out-of-pocket, once all of the government-hating TEA Party crew have taken the Federal Government and “drown it in the bathtub”. You know, if it wasn’t for the Federal Government the South would still be segregated and something like twelve states would still ban consensual intercourse between gay men. You’ll forgive me if I don’t view the Federal Government with quite the same suspicion as most people here.
Comment by Senatus — November 1, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - November 1, 2009
Wow, you seem like a really angry person.
I do so love the hypocrisy of gay liberals.
It doesn’t seem like you care at all about gay issues…..Again, my wallet is not more important to me than the equal protection of me and my family under the law…….I have tried to be open-minded about the views here, but I just can not wrap my head around this obsession you people have with money……Good luck to all of you, I hope your bank account can shield you from the homophobic hellhole all your conservative “friends” want to turn this country into.
And later:
I guess I just look at politics differently than my fellow gays who are conservative. Our priorities are simply too different, irreconcilable perhaps. Social issues mean far more to me than fiscal or foreign police issues ever will. I know I’m going to look close-minded by saying so, but this is why I could never date a conservative / Republican – the gap in beliefs and expectations is just far too broad, it would poison everything else.
As far as I have been able to observe, both in this country and abroad, it has been center, center-left, liberal, and left-oriented groups that have championed change for the gay community. To be frank, most conservatives frighten me on gay issues….I can’t help but see him as just more of the same anti-gay conservatism I’ve seen in politics all of my adult life. He’s been endorsed by a host of anti-gay religious right groups, from the National Organization for Marriage to Concerned Women for America. If that doesn’t bother you as a gay person, then vote for him – I just would not be able to do it myself, he opposes my way of life, and that just hits too close to home for me.
Insulting, condescending, and patronizing all at once — and then he tries to claim OTHER people are angry?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2009 @ 10:15 pm - November 1, 2009
Apparently every political belief I have is wrong and worthy of ridicule.
How ironic; you’re now whining about people calling your beliefs wrong and ridiculing them when you came storming in here in your first post to do exactly that to all of us.
You can dish, but you can’t take. How very typical of a gay liberal, and how very obvious it makes it that you expect preferential treatment based on your minority status.
Somehow I’m supposed to not let the sexual identity I struggled for fifteen years to come to terms with influence any choice I make in the political realm.
“Any” choice wouldn’t be the problem. The issue here is that you let it influence EVERY choice you make, to the point where you are incapable of making a decision WITHOUT consulting your Big Book of Approved Gay Outcomes.
Furthermore, you insist that, because WE do not make what you consider an “approved” gay outcome and belief system, we must be self-loathing and psychologically disturbed — or not really gay.
Since I’m nothing but a “narcissistic, self-obsessed, insecure” little f*g for wishing to be treated with a modicum of respect in this country
Correction. You are a narcissistic, self-obsessed, insecure little f*g because you are incapable of recognizing the difference between respect, which includes the capacity to disagree, and unconditional worship and affirmation of whatever you do regardless of performance, consistency, or intelligence because you are gay, which is what you are demanding.
I hope all of you are happy when these wonderful evangelical Christian conservatives who apparently wrote all our founding documents finally turn this country back into a “Christian Nation”, circa 1790.
Your fantasies based on your irrational antireligious bigotry and hatred are no concern of ours. The fact that you are a bigot who hates Christians, demonizes them, and does everything in your power to hurt them is your own psychological disturbance. You and your fellow cowards who hide this behind your sexual orientation are the primary problem in this country.
Grow up and stop blaming your bigotry on your sexual orientation, coward.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - November 1, 2009
Man – this is a tough room tonight!
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 1, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - November 1, 2009
Well, I guess our loss is Canada’s… loss.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — November 1, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - November 1, 2009
You said it, you meant it.
I wonder…would gay marriage mean a damn to you if you’re pounding sand for Islamo-fascists or some other enemy of America? Wouldn’t you prefer security first and worry about the miniscule later? Wouldn’t you want the freedom to get married and not worry about the plane, while on your honeymoon, being hijacked and flown into a building?
What is it about individual freedom, liberty and responsibility that terrifies you? What is it about the desire for you to succede and be the best at whatever you choose to do that frightens you?
Bush did and he was pilloried as a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe so what the hell difference would that make?
McCain did and he was pilloried as a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe so what the hell difference would that make?
Not to mention McCain granted an interview with the gay media. Chairman Obama was too busy surrounding himself with racist, sexist, bigot homophobes to do so.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 2, 2009 @ 4:10 am - November 2, 2009
Guys,
Who among us hasn’t posted in haste and said things that could have been phrased better? I’m prone to take Sent at his word that he was over blustery.
Now as to marriage, lets remember there are two different levels of meaning here.
1) A commitment, normally within religious or sociatal context, between two (or more!) adults promising a life long relationship. This is allowed in every state of the union, if not publicly recognized. (possible exception, heritcal offshoots of the LDS, but aren’t they formally charged on fraud and child abuse more than polygamy?)
2) Legal recognition by the state of a relationship between one man and one woman.
It is possible (and encouragable) to have 1 without 2.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 2, 2009 @ 7:13 am - November 2, 2009
[...] I’ve said before, it’s the federal spending, stupid. Comments [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Dede Scozzafava, Rudy Giuliani, Federal Spending, Tea Parties & the Future of the GOP — November 2, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - November 2, 2009
Lots of great comments in this thread! Especially ER #33.
Unfortunately, Senatus has a point. Not in the way he thinks. But America, under the socialist-fascist philosophy of the Democrats, is no longer a free country. China, which is communist and commits human rights abuses, is actually better in terms of economic freedom than America is today. I’m not sure what “the freest country in the world” is today. I’d have to think about it. But part of the Democrats’ goal is to make America less of a free country, and less of a great country. *To the extent they succeed*, then, tragically, America in indeed no longer the greatest country. That is why we must defeat them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 2, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - November 2, 2009
(sorry, “i*s* indeed…”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 2, 2009 @ 7:06 pm - November 2, 2009
Me.
Oh sure I sometimes later think of things to add, but I mean what I say.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 2, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - November 2, 2009