Whenever a mainstream conservative blogger addresses attempts by right-wing fringe groups to exclude gays from our movement, his commentary reflects the experiences Bruce and I have had with our fellow denizens of the rightosphere. Our fellow bloggers may not support state recognition of same-sex marriage or oppose the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell Policy, but they do welcome our presence and link our posts.
Ed Morrissey, who has long made gays welcome on the right, is the latest to take on those who would exclude a gay conservative outfit from a mainstream conservative event. Responding to some social conservatives who have been “circulating” e-mails calling GOProud “a crypto-Leftist group seeking to infiltrate and weaken conservative policies” (and objecting to their co-sponsorship of CPAC), the blogger formerly known as Captain Ed gives us the facts:
However, that doesn’t match up with the group’s stated legislative priorities, which do not go any further than most of the conservative and libertarian groups that regularly attend and sponsor the conference.
While noting that social conservatives may quibble with two of those priorities, Ed finds
platform could be just as easily adopted at a Tea Party as at GOProud, and would receive rousing support from the floor at CPAC coming from any other entity. It’s not a far-Left or crypto-Left agenda at all, but a good, solid recitation of conservative principles and fiscal responsibility.
In other words, we have at least an 80% agreement on the major issues facing our country between mainstream conservatives and this sponsor of CPAC.
Reminds me of something attributed to the Gipper, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
Ed “asked Lisa DiPasquale, the director of CPAC, for a response to the controversy”:
CPAC is a coalition of nearly 100 conservative groups, some of which may disagree with one another on a handful of issues. But, at the end of the day, we all agree on core conservative principles. As you may know, GOProud was founded by a former member of the Log Cabin Republicans who left the group because he thought they were doing a disservice to their constituency by not adhering to conservative and Republican principles.
Emphasis added. Sounds like a rousing endorsement of inclusion to me and a reiteration of Ronald Reagan’s vision for the right.
“…a reiteration of Ronald Reagan’s vision for the right.”
Yeah, about that vision…
“My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.” – Ronald Reagan
Sounds like the “fringe groups” are more in the tradition of Reagan than you.
Why so bitter, Tano? Unlike you, I guess I don’t care much if people don’t want to recognize or accept my lifestyle. As long as I’m treated fairly, I don’t care what people think. Perhaps you should get over yourself.
You are missing the point Richard. It is not about me. I was just noting Dan’s longing for Reagan’s vision, which he seems to think aligns with his position rather than the position of “fringe groups”, and pointing out what that vision entailed. How is that about me?
Tano’s just sore that Reagan didn’t support antisemitic loons like he does, or that he opposed fascism.
Remember, Reagan supported a free eastern Europe. Tano supports abandoning them.
To quote Deroy Murdoch “If this is homophobia, let’s elect more homophobes.”
Good on Ed Morresy for sticking up for Reagan’s vision.
If you don’t want to take the Turdo dumbass hack job, one can look to REALITY. Long before the quote that POS Turdo used, Reagan wrote:
One could also read:
Reagan and Gays: A Reassessment
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26670.html
Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jtsimpson/2009/05/08/why-reagan-was-a-better-friend-to-gays-than-obama/
Anti-Gay Gipper
A lie about Reagan.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp
And just for fun, you can read about the kind of people POS Turdo circles the wagons around:
Liberals and Their Invisible Homophobia
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2008/04/08/Liberals_and_Their_Invisible_Homophobia/
Just wanted to say that I sent CPAC an email giving them props for including GOProud. I’ve read this blog for a while, but never commented – thought today was as good a day as any. 🙂
Hey TGC, glad to see you could tear yourself away from your NAMBLA meeting long enough to share some links to rightwing talking points. Gee, that really cinches things, now dont it?
As a gay, ron paul supporter it’s fascinating watching the battle between social and/or fiscal conservatism. I think, in the end we’ll focus more on fiscal conservatism as Obama is in completely over his head. Anyway, good site. Will link to it from ron-paul.us. Thanks.
And of course, Tano a) provides a quote w/o citation and b) cries when he’s spanked by reality, again.
Interesting. I heard about this yesterday and wondered what would posted about this here. If ACU & CPAC manage to weather the soc-con wrath, this would be a good step. Of course if Barber et al are successful in getting GOProud excluded that will be…well let’s just say bad. Let’s see what happens.
Hey Livewire,
“Tano a) provides a quote w/o citation ‘
What does that mean? Are you questioning the truth of the quote?
Does that mean that the quote disturbs you?
You can actually find the quote in the Reagan love-letter that is linked in the first citation in comment #5.
“b) cries when he’s spanked by reality, again.”
My gawd the childishness around here gets tiring.
If you aint got nothin’ but silliness like this, y’know, sometimes its better to remain silent, lest you remove all doubt.
#10: Tano, what’s disturbing is that you think the quote is disturbing. Implicit in the quote is that Reagan did not believe that gays are undeserving of civil rights. His objection was to their demands for: recognition; acceptance; and that homosexuality be condoned (and justifiably so). Of course, you find the quote disturbing because you believe that being officially “recognized,” lovingly “accepted,” and having your lifestyle celebrated and promoted by government and the rest of society are civil rights. THAT is fringe. True tolerance, like that exhibited by Reagan, is not.
“His objection was to their demands for: recognition; acceptance; and that homosexuality be condoned (and justifiably so).”
“True tolerance”
Wow. Ya got me there Sean. I be speechless.
You got your world, and buddy, you are welcome to it.
Remember, to Tano, true tollerance is communists and Truthers being in the administration, and support for those poor folks being zapped by Jewish microwaves.
He just hates it that RR liberated all those people in Eastern Europe, despite the efforts of communists like Obama’s advisors.
I’m an American first. Being gay is like 7th down on the list of “what” I am. Gays, if no one else, should be scared to death of Obamacare. It’s none of your business what I do in my house, and certainly none of the government’s.
It seems that all the worst crap legislated against us happens during Democratic administrations. (Remember DADT and DOMA?)
The mess our economy is in right now seems to have brought most conservatives back to a concern for expanding government power, high taxes and drunken-sailor spending. It shouldn’t have taken this to do it, but at least it did wake them up.
Maybe we should think of it all the way we would a horrific storm: as an act of God.
INDEPENDENT Gay Forum and Advocate are “rightwing”????
Good to know, dumbass. Now we KNOW you exist in an alternate reality.
Silliness like the shit you smear around here and call a cogent thought?
TGC, when you discriminate on race, and when you support facsits and anti-semites, any source to the right of Das Kapital is ‘rightwing’
Good one for the Captain!
But reading his comments (and those at Ace of Spades) I see that we really have a lot of work to do.
Best wishes,
-MFS
My attitude towards gay “conservatives” is the same as it would be towards pedophile “conservatives” or dog-fighting “conservatives.” I would welcome their private vote, but I would not publically associate with them or support their run for office. No, I’m not equating gays with pedophiles or animal abusers, but all three are morally repugnant to me.
Sure, you can label me as a rabid right-winger, but try to understand my position. Is anything morally repugnant to you? If so, try to put yourself in the position of including them into the conservative movement. Mike Vick might be a good quarterback, but do we want him as a spokesman for the conservative movement? I know what my answer is…
MFS, I know, but getting some support and finding common cause is a start.
hey #20, do you think the present-day GOP affirms your views of homosexuality?
Hey Chad,
Does the democrats support of DADT, DOMA, and SSM affirm your values of homosexuality?
I don’t care what “John Doe,” or any other anonymous poster in cyberspace, thinks of my morality. Truth be told, if he actually revealed anything about himself, I might not approve of his, either.
We need, in this country, to return to an understanding of what freedom of conscience means. It’s the root of both the freedoms of worship and speech, and we have no real liberty without it.
I’ll go to my church, and John Doe can go to his. That’s what America is all about. Gays either have the right to vote, and act as citizens, the way we choose or we do not. That has to mean more than simply voting for the one party that takes us for granted, cynically uses us and then tosses us aside like a soiled condom when they’re done with us.
What’s important, now, is fixing this country and preserving out Constitution. If John Doe is for that, then that’s all that matters. Let’s just leave the touchy-feely stuff about whether everybody really LUVS us out of it.
I am a Jewish “Barry Goldwater” Conservative who has supported C-PAC for many years, if they refuse gay conservatives there will be a huge backlash. I have also given money to Log Cabin Republicans; I will now also give to GOProud. I just called C-PAC and let them know that my support will stop based on how they treat GLBT Conservatives. Barry Goldwater a supporter of gay rights would have been upset to find out that the movement he brought to prominence is rejecting Gay people
22, I don’t care if it does or not.
24, does “freedom of conscience” extend to animal abusers? To necropheliacs? This country was founded on morality. Freedom meant freedom to act within social constraints, otherwise it was not liberty but licentiousness. Look it up. There is a difference between those two words that was vital when our country was founded.
Nobody that I know cares what homosexuals do behind closed doors. Just don’t rub our noses in it, or try to make us officially sanction your abhorrent behavior. I’m sure I do things which are abhorrent to you, but I don’t try to make you officially endorse them. I’d rebel just as much if Michael Vick or some bull fighter from Spain wanted me to endorse their lifestyle.
John Doe,
Flaw in that arguement. The dead, animals and children can’t give informed consent. Adults are a differnt matter.
We do agree though (I believe) that the government doesn’t have any interest in what consenting adults do.
“I’m sure I do things which are abhorrent to you, but I don’t try to make you officially endorse them.”
I don’t care to make you “officially endorse” anything. Nothing in my being, or in my life, requires either your official or even your unofficial endorsement.
What I insist — as a free and independent citizen of these United States — is that you leave me the hell alone to let me live my life according to my own convictions and beliefs. That, if our Constitution means anything at all anymore, is what that means.
We WILL participate in the government, as we have just as much of a right to do as you have. We will NOT be passive and cringing subjects, fawning over you and kissing your butt. We will participate in every deliberative organization we can to help restore this nation to the principles upon which it was founded.
Surely, when you clicked onto this site, if you bothered to read anything that is posted here, you found out that there are gays who do not agree with the prevailing attitudes found on the political Left. If you did that, then stop trying to put words in our mouths or twist what you find here to suit your own, canned and prefabulated rhetoric.
“The dead, animals and children can’t give informed consent. Adults are a differnt matter.”
Spot on, Livewire. Thus can we reply to the anonymous insults hurled at us in cyberspace.
John Doe, stick to defending the Constitution. Few who post here would deny that in that, we all share a common interest.
Livewire, no “flaw in my argument.” Your version of morality is that if something or somebody consents, then it is all good. My morality isn’t so lacking. So, if a person “consents” in writing before they die, it’s ok? And what if the horse really likes it? Your version of “morality” condones polygamy, adultery, prostitution, orgies, and any number of other immoral acts. Mine doesn’t. There is no “flaw” in my logic, but there sure is in yours.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they also had laws against bigamy, homosexuality, and all manner of immorality. It is impossible to argue that those who wrote the Constitution did not understand, and that somehow they enacted unconstitutional laws contemporaneously with the Constitution, and only later (say 200 yrs in the case of Lawrence v. Texas) were those laws discovered to be unconstitutional.
John, does your “morality” only extend to other White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males or what? When the left calls us racist, sexist, bigot homophobes, do you say “damn right!”?
Wow, someone tell the polygamy laws to the mormons… If only they knew those pesky laws outlawing polygamy in the 1800’s went back in time and had the founders pass them…
Nope your horse doesn’t fly, and yes what consenting adults do with each other -is- fine. Unless you’re honestly arguing that one adult can’t consent to go skydiving with others in case they you know, die.
It is not possible to legislate morality, no matter what the liberals do. It’s possible to teach morality, we do it with our kids all the time. But it isn’t the state’s concern who I’m with (no matter how many) as long as it’s willing. It’s not the state’s concern how many toilets i have, how big they are, or how many guns I have or swords or axes, or whips and chains for that matter.
“Your version of “morality” condones polygamy, adultery, prostitution, orgies, and any number of other immoral acts. Mine doesn’t.”
And exactly who says, John Doe Anonymous, that “our version of morality” condones such things? At this point you’re simply pulling crap out of your butt and flinging it at us to see if it sticks.
You have obviously bothered to read nothing posted on this blog, so your reason for commenting here is…what, exactly? You seem to find it impossible to read for comprehension (or, more likely, you’re simply too sloppy to bother).
Although you are probably the last one who would recognize this, you are a prime example of exactly why GoProud is needed, and why they should participate in conservative events. Ignorance like yours must be countered. Even when it’s as willful as yours so obviously is.
You can’t even claim that you don’t know better. That’s what makes you so pathetic.
30, I don’t care what the left calls us. They are going to call us names no matter what. I’m not going to cave into immoral queers just so that the left doesn’t call us names.
31, soooo, consenting adults can kill each other in private. And they can consent to watching kiddie porn. And taking smack and crack. And they can “consent” to torturing puppies in the privacy of their own homes. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt. We can and do outlaw things that we do not want to allow in our society. You just don’t want to, or don’t have the stomach for, outlawing homosexual behavior.
It IS possible to “legislate morality;” we do it every day, see the above paragraph for examples. That is a cop out, not to mention being factually untrue. Do you bother to think before you type something?
32, do you ever follow the “logic” of what others write? I was responding to the person who said “dead animals and children can’t consent.” The OBVIOUS conclusion to reach is that particular person would agree that it is ok if they could consent. Prostitutes and bigamists and and orgies presumably are all consenting adults, and therefore fine in that particular person’s mind. If you disagree, and think that homosexuality should be legal but that prostitution, bygamy, orgies and the like should be illegal, why, and on what basis? Like I thought. You DO think that they should all be legal. See? I was right.
Sorry, chicky, it ain’t “ignorance,” it is a principled stance against immorality. And I’m here because this blog was linked to by conservative grape vine. If you don’t want people to comment on crap that is put out on this blog, don’t post crap.
Wow, so now John Doe is a mind reader. *laugh*
Of course I guess that means if I read John’s mind, he’d ban driving, sky diving, hunting, smoking, flying, or anything else that would be risky.
But then I wouldn’t read John’s mind. I don’t do picture books.
And John, the only legislating morality comes in when affecting another. Stealing is depriving one of property, murder is depriving of life. There is a reason the constitution is a document of ‘negative rights’ as the president says.
Can the state offer incentives for certain behaviours? Yes. Drivers license for the privilege of driving, or requirements for government recognition of a contract.
Tell me, John. Do you think the state should be allowed to say what cosenting adult you can or cannot have sex with? Most of the posters here on the right think this country needs to focus on fixing bigger things than whether or not two (or more) adults are sharing a bed.
I fear though it’s a lost cause with you, as your knowlege of history is as lacking as Tano’s understanding of insurance, or Levi’s understanding of the constitution.
“And I’m here because this blog was linked to by conservative grape vine.”
So, Anonymous, you ARE simply posting in ignorance and not bothering to read the blog upon which you are posting. Yeah, “chicky,” that IS ignorance. That is precisely what it is.
A few people confront you with reason, and you respond by spluttering, setting your hair on fire and shrieking about dead people and animals. No one else here has to make you look bad, you’re doing such an effective job of it yourself.
I did go to John Doe’s link. . .in some circles he would be considered a hot ‘Daddy’ and he speaks so . . . firmly, I am sure some SM folk might be turned on. but MAAADOG . . .or so goes his weblog clearly demonstrates, here is something to chew on.
• Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: The number of states outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation increased 83 percent, from 12 to 22, between 2000 and 2009. The percentage of the U.S. population living in states banning discrimination based on sexual orientation soared from 24.5 percent to 44.1 percent, an 80 percent increase. In other words, today 134 million Americans are now living in states where discrimination based on sexual orientation has been outlawed, an increase of 65 million over the decade. (When local nondiscrimination laws passed by cities without statewide protections are included, the figure is over 50 percent of the U.S. population.) Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on sexual orientation grew from 51 percent to 88 percent.
• Discrimination Based on Gender Identity: There was an even more remarkable increase in states outlawing discrimination based on gender identity and expression, which rose from just 1state in the year 2000 to 14 states representing nearly 30 percent of the population in 2009. The percentage of Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on gender identity jumped even more, from just 0.6 percent to 35 percent.
• Relationship Recognition: Similarly exceptional gains were made in the area of family recognition. In 2000, no state extended the freedom to marry to same-sex couples; one state gave broad recognition to same-sex relationships and one offered limited recognition. Now in 2009, five states extend marriage to same-sex couples (with New Jersey and the District of Columbia pending at press time), six offer broad recognition, and seven offer more limited recognition. Overall, the number of Americans living in a state that offers some protections to same-sex couples nearly tripled, from 12.7 percent to 37.2 percent.
• Protection from Violence: The 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is the first federal law to specifically protect LGBT people.
• LGBT Elected Officials: The number of openly LGBT elected officials in America rose 73 percent between 2000 and 2009, from 257 to 445.
• Public Opinion: The percentage of the public supporting the right of openly gay and lesbian people to serve in the military grew from 62 percent to 75 percent. Support for marriage equality has grown from 35 percent in 2000 to 39 percent today; there has been an even larger increase in support for relationship recognition that involves many of the rights of marriage, from 45 to 57 percent.
• Safer Schools: In 2000, only one state had a safe school law that specifically cited sexual orientation and gender identity/expression for protection; by 2009 that rose to 13 states. The number of Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs in high schools grew from 700 to 4,700, a nearly six-fold increase.
change is a coming http://www.lgbtmap.org/home.html
sorry I guess it is maaadddog, my apologies John Doe
Whatever, Rusty. As a libertarian, I’m not interested anymore in getting everybody to love us. I think we should be concerned with a return to small and un-intrusive government. That has nothing to do with, as Anonymous says, “legislating morality,” and everything to do with returning to individual responsibility for one’s own behavior.
The liberals seem to push for policies that encourage irresponsibility by letting people (including heterosexuals) do whatever they want — at other people’s expense. I am not in favor of that for anybody, including gays. If each adult had to face the consequences of their own actions, without Big Brother there to soften the blow, we’d see a lot more moral and responsible behavior in society.
The difference between conservative Christians who want to legislate their religious beliefs (which are not even shared by every other conservative Christian when it comes to things like same-sex love) and conservative Muslims who want to impose Sharia law by force, is merely a matter of degree. The silence of many “Christians” when Uganda tried to impose the death penalty on gays shows that. It is up to those who really believe in limited government, here in the U.S., to stop that sort of thing from happening here.
Kudos to Gay Patriot for all they’re trying to do. This is a terrific site. I just wish that people like Anonymous would take the time to read some of the posts here before coming in and trashing us all. Most of the folks who post here are really on the same side, politically, as he is. He, and people like him, are simply shooting themselves in the foot by failing to realize this.
Lori Heine, you lack even the common decency to come out and spell it out, so I will. What you are saying is that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution are no different than the Muslim fanatics. You are either ignorant about history, or a liar. Sorry, “legislating morality” has been around since this country began. You just don’t like it, so you won’t admit it. This isn’t some new phenomena only recently instituted by “conservative Christians.”
The only difference between people like you and whores, pedophiles, animal abusers, perverts and the like is a matter of (small) degree.
Whiiiiine. Christians didn’t speak out soon enough to suit you regarding Uganda. Oh boo hoo. Not one person died there due the government, while millions are dying in Africa due to AIDS. How about queers just ceasing to have sex if they have HIV or AIDS? JUST. STOP. Instead, people such as you advocate that they can do any damn thing they want so long as it is with another “consenting” adult.
‘What you are saying is that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution are no different than the Muslim fanatics.”
No I am not saying that, and if you were capable of reading for comprehension you would know it. You are the liar, because you are deliberately twisting my words.
When I wrote that, I wondered if you were going to pull that crap. I put it in there anyway, just to see how dishonest you really are. Again, you proved the point better than I ever could.
When it comes to “legislating morality,” the gap in your understanding would make plenty of room for a good-sized planet. Part of that post described the way the founders did that…by what are now commonly known as libertarian (and used to be considered conservative) principles…which involved encouraging individual responsibility and removing the soft landing an overindulgent government might provide. This honors everyone’s individual freedom, recognizing that the government properly exists to protect our rights, not to attack them.
If you really knew anything about the origins of conservative American thought, you would be quite familiar with what I was saying. What you are showing, instead, is that you are either an ignoramus of titanic proportions or a total liar.
“The only difference between people like you and whores, pedophiles, animal abusers, perverts and the like is a matter of (small) degree.”
There is no difference between a nasty little creep like you and a coward, because that is what you are. You are a dirty, chickenhearted little coward who slithers over to a site you’re too ignorant to even bother to read, one hand down your pants, drooling all over your keyboard as you fantasize about what (you think) other people do sexually. Using an alias, of course.
Lord’s Bleeding Wounds John,
You sound more like you belong in the Fred Phelps group than in any conservative organization.
Here, allow me to be logical about this, since you are unable to yourself. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. The same Founding Fathers, as leaders of their respective states and commonwealths, enacted laws which–DID WHAT? Which “legislated morality.” The same sin that you accuse the “conservative Christians” of doing. Listen, you gutless carpet muncher, (OH, SEEE? I can insult too), you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren’t entitled to make up facts. I get it. You wish that they had not done so. You wish that they would have been good little libertarians. But they weren’t.
And, oh, by the way, libertarians are as much like whores and the like as conservative Christians are like fanatical Muslims. You can dish out the insults, but you can’t take them. AIDS got your brain?
“AIDS got your brain?”
Since I am obviously a female, therefore a lesbian — a member of the demograpic least likely to contract AIDS), your spiteful and childish little question, Anonymous Coward, makes no sense.
A psychiatrist would, no doubt, be very interested in why you — a supposed heterosexual — are so obviously obsessed with homosexuality that you now feel compelled to return here, again and again and again, to expose your tortured little Id to the rest of us. Most of us were closeted once, so we’re well aware of what you’re doing.
Get help. Or take a pill. Or shoot yourself. I don’t give a damn which. It isn’t possible to have a reasoned discussion with anybody as messed up in the head as you are.
“You can dish out the insults, but you can’t take them.” Sure I can. Especially when they come from someone so unaware of how he comes across to others that he just goes on making a fool of himself, long after his real motives have become transparent.
I don’t need to say more. All we need to do, here, is just wind you up and you” do it all for us.
Damn Lori,
Thank you for reminding me (again) that it seems all the good women are either taken or playing for the other team. 😉
Lori, and Livewire, good try with your rational arguments. I’m afraid it isn’t going to work here.
Force of habit Pat. Always trying to reach out to the heathens…
Even you 😉
Thanks, Livewire. Every once in a while it works with me.
Is it gone now? (The theme from “Halloween” stops playing.)
Troubled times breed troubled people. Blogs like this one seem to bring out the best — and the worst — of them.
I think we are making a difference. It will take time to see just how much of one we’re able to effect.