Gay Patriot Header Image

On Chris Barron and Cleta Mitchell

Below please find a post I wrote on the matter of GOProud Chairman Chris Barron’s recent remarks about Cleta Mitchell. When I ran it by Bruce as we had been discussing how to respond, he asked that I sign his name to it. So, consider it from both of us:

I have long believed it best to address your friends’ faults in private and your enemies’ in public. While Bruce and I have long been enthusiastic about GOProud and supportive of Chris Barron, its chairman of the Board and Jimmy LaSalvia, its executive director, as they try to create a national forum for gay conservatives, we have not always seen eye to eye with them. To be sure, we respect their work, enjoy their company and generally approve of the direction in which they are taking GOProud, but from time to time, we have been skeptical about some of their projects and have occasionally disagreed with their statements (or taken issue with their wording). We have expressed our concerns in private e-mails and polite conservations or merely in remarks to each other.

When we heard that Chris had called Cleta Mitchell a “nasty bigot” in a public forum, Bruce and I each contacted the other to express his concerns. We both believe he crossed a line and have been considering for the past 24 hours how to respond. This evening (Thursday, February 10), we thought it best to post this piece. While we disagree with Cleta Mitchell on a number of issues, we believe Chris was wrong to call her a “nasty bigot” to a reporter for the Metro Weekly. This is not appropriate public discourse. We are pleased that Chris apologized for using such intemperate language and encourage him to use greater discretion in future commentary.

UPDATE:  Just saw this commentary at Allahpundit which reflects our views:

Even so, although I support GOProud, I admit to cringing a bit at Chris Barron goofing on boycotters as having exiled themselves to the “Island of Political Misfit Toys” or whatever. It’s not that DeMint et al. can’t take it — Barron himself, I’m sure, could offer a few insights from his formative years about dealing with taunts and name-calling — but doing an end-zone dance over such a contentious disagreement is foolishly and needlessly alienating.

Share

67 Comments

  1. Yea, and you’re not the only one’s to take notice of him either. Apparently the new CPAC Chief isn’t extremely thrilled with them either.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/10/new-cpac-chief-we-might-have-to-dump-goproud-for-taunting-the-boycotters/

    Chris seems like a nice enough guy, and even tho I disagree with a lot of what he says, he always presents his arguments in a well reasoned fashion in his tv appearances. I just think his in your face attitude might be rubbing some people the wrong way. Even though the AFA and FRC may be “anti gay for pay” they still have a place in the conservative movement, and he needs to realize that and not be so quick to dismiss them.

    I like what GOProud is doing for the most part though. Shaking things up in the conservative arena and really challenging them on their willingness to accept gays.

    Comment by aj — February 11, 2011 @ 12:23 am - February 11, 2011

  2. good analysis, aj.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 11, 2011 @ 12:34 am - February 11, 2011

  3. [...] now appears that members from within GoProud have also found disagreement with Barron in a statement posted at the blog of GoProud Treasurer Bruce Carroll.  In a statement written by B. Daniel Blatt and signed by [...]

    Pingback by GoProud Dissent Among the Ranks | RedState — February 11, 2011 @ 1:20 am - February 11, 2011

  4. On behalf of the “gay community,” the “gay left,” the left in general, the center, the center-right, and yes, the Log Cabin Republicans, I would like to say:

    Ha. Ha. Ha.

    You’ve been salivating over guarded platitudes from Sarah Palin and tired Judy Garland jokes from Ann Coulter as some sign that you’re part of The Club. Now you know the truth. The truth you’ve tried to deny to the world and to yourselves. The truth that anyone with half an ounce of self-respect could see from miles away:

    You. Are. Not. Wanted.

    Your affronted and “cringing” source Allahpundit puts it best:

    “So maybe that’s the solution for big-tenters who want a place for the GOProuds of the world on the right. Start an alternative conference, organized chiefly around fiscal responsibility…”

    An alternative conference. Something separate. Equal… but separate. Yeah, that’s it. Separate, but equal.

    And more from Cardenas:

    http://www.frumforum.com/new-cpac-head-distances-group-from-goproud

    “It’s going to be difficult to continue the relationship [with GOProud] because of their behavior and attitude.”

    Asked if someone who supported gay marriage could be a conservative, Cardenas replied, “Not a Ronald Reagan conservative… I will say this: we adopted a resolution unanimously at ACU advocating traditional marriage between a man and a woman, so that answers how we feel on the issue.”

    Oh, no! They took your Gipper doll away, too!

    Yes, that’s right. Everyone, left and right – everyone but you – recalls just how fundamental hatred of homosexuals was to the Reagan presidency.

    You know what? If you weren’t such consistently nasty little queens, the rest of us might not be laughing as hard right now. We might be feeling pity watching you squealing your apologies for getting too gay-uppity, for overstepping your bounds.

    But we’re not. We’re enjoying it.

    Comment by Adams — February 11, 2011 @ 2:01 am - February 11, 2011

  5. Um, Adams, do you even read the posts to which you attach your comments?

    Trying to figure out why you feel you need to insult us and make up things about the Reagan Administration. And please note the conservatives you cite; they’re not objecting to the participation of gay people in the conservative movement, but to the particular comments Chris Barron made–comments that we take issue with in this very blog post. Indeed, the very quote from Cardenas makes explicit the problem is that attitude.

    If we’re not wanted, why then did RedState favorably quote this very post (you know, the one to which you attach your comment)?

    Most conservatives are making their gay confrères welcome, but they object to recent commentary of GOProud’s chairman. As do we.

    And that’s the point of the post.

    Pardon me for repeating myself, but I do keep trying to figure out why folks like you need to come to conservative blogs and attach comments to their posts where they don’t even consider the points raised, but instead issue lengthy rants attacking the bloggers (while often misrepresenting theirs points) and in this case, reaching conclusions that have no basis in fact.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 11, 2011 @ 2:28 am - February 11, 2011

  6. Keep licking the boot, queen. Keep licking the boot.

    Comment by Adams — February 11, 2011 @ 2:36 am - February 11, 2011

  7. Fascinating how some people find it so much easier to insult than to address arguments which challenge their worldview.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 11, 2011 @ 2:46 am - February 11, 2011

  8. Trying to figure out why you feel you need to insult us and make up things about the Reagan Administration.

    Battered wives have a tendency of creating their own reality as they like to see it so they don’t have to deal with the real world.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2011 @ 2:52 am - February 11, 2011

  9. Yes, that’s right. Everyone, left and right – everyone but you – recalls just how fundamental hatred of homosexuals was to the Reagan presidency.

    Which is the little lie that pathological barebacker gays have been using for years to avoid dealing with the fact that they and their irresponsibility killed hundreds of thousands of people.

    Furthermore, it becomes even more hilariously delusional when you consider that Adams’s massa Barack Obama downright admires and wants to emulate Reagan’s presidency.

    We understand, Adams. Plantation slaves like yourself tend to be jealous and spiteful towards those free gays and lesbians who aren’t stuck with the guilt of having killed their lovers and who are capable of not only functioning, but succeeding in society without a welfare check.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2011 @ 3:03 am - February 11, 2011

  10. Great piece Dan and Bruce. Right on the money.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 11, 2011 @ 4:16 am - February 11, 2011

  11. You’ve been salivating over guarded platitudes from Sarah Palin and tired Judy Garland jokes from Ann Coulter as some sign that you’re part of The Club. Now you know the truth. The truth you’ve tried to deny to the world and to yourselves. The truth that anyone with half an ounce of self-respect could see from miles away:

    You. Are. Not. Wanted.

    Of course they were wanted and welcome. You just admitted it yourself by noting that they were bragging about being welcomed and invited in the first place, and welcomed by Palin, Coulter, anong many others.

    But you are right about ONE thing, and one thing ONLY Adams. You are correct that GOProud got too boastful. GOProud took that invitation, and those friendly welcoming remarks and…

    well, basically they acted like liberals. They were invited to the party, welcomed to the party, then they got a little drunk with the excitement of it all and behaved boorishly and badly.

    A mistake very much like mistakes I have made and like I think most honest people will admit having made (which naturally leaves you out).

    But it doesnt have anything to do with not being welcome, it is a matter of acting poorly and wearing out the welcome you were given. Two very different things.

    And unlike liberals, conservatives are very forgiving people. GOProud will be welcome again if they make it clear that they intend to respect and work with, not against, everyone else at the party.

    In other words, he behaved pretty much exactly like you are behaving in this thread. Like an ass.

    Unlike you, however, I’m sure he will regret it and learn from it.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 11, 2011 @ 4:42 am - February 11, 2011

  12. Everyone, left and right – everyone but you – recalls just how fundamental hatred of homosexuals was to the Reagan presidency.

    How does this bitter persecution complex actually aid you in getting through life exactly? Obsessing over largely imagined persecution from thirty years ago? That’s, like, really pathetic and stuff.

    Comment by V the K — February 11, 2011 @ 5:25 am - February 11, 2011

  13. It’s too bad. I think Barron/LaSalvia and GoProud had the upper hand until the Metro Weekly article. That article – and the quotes about Cleta Mitchell and others, now give people who oppose GoProud’s participation in CPAC an excuse to distance themselves from the group.

    It will be interesting to see what happens next year at CPAC. Will this end up being 1 step forward, 2 steps back?

    Comment by Eva Young — February 11, 2011 @ 5:59 am - February 11, 2011

  14. Barron’s comment was ill-advised — and he has apparently begun walking it back. You’ve nailed the problem precisely — and precisely why I was displeased by Barron’s words.

    Comment by Rhymes With Right — February 11, 2011 @ 6:19 am - February 11, 2011

  15. Why are you throwing your pal under the bus for showing a human reaction? He felt bigotry, he has been under attack for months, and instead of being a sissy boi he stood up and was man enough to call a spade a spade. Whats your reaction? Instead of giving him understanding and support you toss him aside. Instead of confronting his critics you confront your pal.

    When are you guys going to start challenging your critics and try to change your party? When someone shows they dont want you because you are Gay its OK to call that person a bigot. You call attention to your sexuality with the name of your website and name of your political group. So you must think being gay has some special meaning to you. So stand up and defend yourself. Stop back slapping yourselves over the fact the costal elite conservative is willing to shake your hand and start confronting the real conservatives who wont

    Comment by gillie — February 11, 2011 @ 6:43 am - February 11, 2011

  16. [...] this.It now appears that members from within GoProud have also found disagreement with Barron in a statement posted at the blog of GoProud Treasurer Bruce Carroll.  In a statement written by B. Daniel Blatt and signed by [...]

    Pingback by What not to do at a CPAC conference: take a whack at Ron Paul, Mr Trump | Radio Vice Online — February 11, 2011 @ 7:27 am - February 11, 2011

  17. Sounds like Adams is just one more of those liberals who cannot stand any ideologica diversity whatsoever – and thus has to insult and attempt to demean those who don’t think as he does.

    Small and rather pathetic.

    Good analyis, Dan & Bruce!

    Comment by Peg — February 11, 2011 @ 8:16 am - February 11, 2011

  18. I’m sure this has occurred to you already, or maybe it hasn’t… but in order to gain the acceptance among “true conservatives” that you so sadly crave, you probably are going to have to remove the word “gay” from the title of your blog. Because announcing yourself as “gay” is too much like announcing yourself as “Proud” or calling someone else a “bigot.” They’re all leftist code words. At this point, your castration – not just the first 2 inches, but the remaining 1 as well – will be complete, and you will be welcomed into your cage in the corner.

    With eternal revulsion, Erick Erickson and the RedState Army
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/

    Comment by Adams — February 11, 2011 @ 9:25 am - February 11, 2011

  19. With enemies like Adams, who needs friends?

    Comment by mcg — February 11, 2011 @ 9:54 am - February 11, 2011

  20. Adams @#4:

    Asked if someone who supported gay marriage could be a conservative, Cardenas replied, “Not a Ronald Reagan conservative… I will say this: we adopted a resolution unanimously at ACU advocating traditional marriage between a man and a woman, so that answers how we feel on the issue.”
    (……)
    You know what? If you weren’t such consistently nasty little queens, the rest of us might not be laughing as hard right now. We might be feeling pity watching you squealing your apologies for getting too gay-uppity, for overstepping your bounds.

    So there you have it. If gay marriage is not your battle and the focus of your raison d’etre you are just a Stepin Fetchit gay-uppity little queen overstepping your bounds and bringing joy and derision to “Progressive” gays who represent elite thinking and civility and multicultural diversity in the vast utopia of correct understanding.

    Adams is also focused @#16 on the size of one’s plumbing. So it further appears that we know the raison d’etre for Adams. He is consumed with the orgasmic side of being gay. Nothing is more underwhelming than a person whose brain is operated by stimulating Mr. Happy. That is one addicted freak show of a human being.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2011 @ 10:11 am - February 11, 2011

  21. Hmm, new troll, same old lies.

    Is the left truly out of material?

    (aside: I know Seane-Anna drives some other regulars crazy, I try to keep civil discourse for the same reason I feel Chris misspoke, We have more in common than what sperates us, and need to keep the focus on that. We can worry about what the new curtains will look like when we get done keeping the house from burning down.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 11, 2011 @ 10:15 am - February 11, 2011

  22. May I also add that Adams is the very model of a modern major generally stereotypical gay “Progressive.” He is his own float in the parade of his imagination. I see beads and feathers. Lots of feathers. And a very saucy strutter with a bitch streak a mile wide. A real Joy Behar with identity issues. Calling Dr. Phil…..

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2011 @ 10:17 am - February 11, 2011

  23. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Adams is typical of the gay left, any more than his cartoonish view of gay conservatives is fair. There are similar divisions among the left as there are among gay conservatives – those who want to be more in your face (Barron), vs those who want to be team players (Bruce Carroll, Dan Blatt) – and it’s similar to the division between folks like John Aravosis and HRC’s Joe Salmonese (who is consumate lefty insider).

    Comment by Eva Young — February 11, 2011 @ 10:22 am - February 11, 2011

  24. #16: No surprise, Adams has chosen to remain willfully ignorant of the facts so that he can continue gleefully celebrating greater turmoil and divisiveness between gay and straight conservatives than actually exists because without it, his identity as a persecuted victim would fall apart.

    However, even if the facts were more explosive or suggested a significant philosophical rift between gay and straight conservatives, is Adams seriously trying to make the case that where we belong politically is with him and people like him? Are we supposed to come to our senses and realize we should have been grazing in the gay left fold all along? Adams is an angry, hateful, bitter, vile, frightening piece of work–in other words, no different from most of the gay leftists who post their seething comments here on a daily basis. The gay conservatives here have nothing in common with a freak like Adams any more than straight conservatives do. And in his ignorant zeal to condemn and ridicule gay conservatives, Adams provides us with a potent reminder of why we wanted nothing to do with him or his ilk to begin with.

    Comment by Sean A — February 11, 2011 @ 10:26 am - February 11, 2011

  25. I think Adams is projecting more than a little bit of the insecurity of the gay progressive left; which not only demands the utmost conformity, but also feels it necessary to bully (rhetorically, of course) anyone who doesn’t toe the progressive leftist line.

    For Adams, the presence of a debate on the right is something he cannot compute. Debate is how we, on the right, hash out different points of view on issues of contention. Debate, of course, is not permitted on the left because there is a PC dogma handed down and everyone adheres to it or STFU. What the left calls “debate” is typically the hammer being brought down on dissenters to get them back into line. So Adams assumes that this is what is going on on the right.

    Comment by V the K — February 11, 2011 @ 10:28 am - February 11, 2011

  26. Unfortunately, it leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth about what I thought was a conservative gay organization.
    I am glad Mr. Barron apologized for *saying* those comments, but now we know what is in his heart.

    We’ll see how things play out in the coming months, but I don’t believe gay social conservatives yet have an organization to give us a voice.

    Comment by Kyle — February 11, 2011 @ 10:47 am - February 11, 2011

  27. Here’s a fascinating bit of background from Pam Spaulding that helps explain why GOP power attorney Cleta Mitchell (who represented Bishop Harry Jackson and his cohorts in the fight over D.C.’s marriage equality law) has such a problem with gay people: She was married in the 1980s to a man who turned out to be gay, and whom she divorced.
    http://www.glaaforum.org/glaa_forum/2011/02/why-right-wing-attorney-cleta-mitchell-has-such-a-problem-with-the-gays.html

    Comment by rusty — February 11, 2011 @ 10:50 am - February 11, 2011

  28. Chris Barron wouldn’t know civility if it bit him on the bum.

    Chris Barron, recently tweeted “The gay left = the American Taliban. Hateful, angry and dumb as shit.”

    His ill-mannered and arrogant mouth, in the long run, will do more harm than good.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — February 11, 2011 @ 10:50 am - February 11, 2011

  29. Barron:

    “For the past six months, we have watched as unfair and untrue attacks have been leveled against our organization, our allies, our friends and sometimes even their families. Everyone has their breaking point and clearly in my interview with Metro Weekly I had reached mine. I shouldn’t have used the language that I did to describe Cleta Mitchell and for that I apologize.”

    http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/02/the-journalists-talk-of-the-pa.html

    another note from the website: [Photo: GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia speaks at the Big Party, with board chairman Chris Barron at his side. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

    Yes Barron should have not declared Cleta (Cl##oris – rhymes with Delores) Mitchell a BIGOT. Not very nice.

    But Barron made this statement to Geidner for a print article, not a video, not a live comment on a cable or MSM outlet.

    Mr. Barron noted in his apology about the ‘last six months’. During that time Barron has had several spots (at least on the cable shows) where he presents himself as a smooth operator. (He is a very capable spokesperson.)

    So, did Mr Barron actually think about his interview with Geidner, who seems to chat regularly with the GOPROUD folk.

    Calling Mitchell on her behavior in a gay mag is the big Pink Elephant in the room no one really wants to acknowledge and in a very unique situation Barron apoligizes and yet Mitchell may continue to proudly wear the badge of the BIGOT.

    I applaud Chris and Jimmy for taking GOPROUD right into the middle of CPAC.

    Comment by rusty — February 11, 2011 @ 11:04 am - February 11, 2011

  30. Thursday, January 13, 2011
    The Single Man
    “The Nazis were obviously wrong to hate the Jews. But their hating the Jews was not without a cause… But the cause wasn’t real. The cause was imagined. The cause was FEAR.
    Let’s leave the Jews out of this for a moment and think of another minority. One that can go unnoticed if it needs to.

    There are all sorts of minorities, blondes for example, but a minority is only thought of as one when it constitutes some kind of threat to the majority. A real threat or an imagined one. And therein lies the FEAR. And, if the minority is somehow invisible……the fear is even greater. And this FEAR is the reason the minority is persecuted. So, there always is a cause. And the cause is FEAR. Minorities are just people. People……like us.

    Fear, after all, is our real enemy. Fear is taking over our world. Fear is being used as a tool of manipulation in our society. It’s how politicians peddle policy and how Madison Avenue sells us things that we don’t need. Think about it. Fear that we’re going to be attacked, fear that there are communists lurking around every corner, fear that some little Caribbean country that doesn’t believe in our way of life poses a threat to us. Fear that black culture may take over the world. Fear of Elvis Presley’s hips.Well, maybe that one is a real fear. Fear that our bad breath might ruin our friendships… Fear of growing old and being alone.”

    http://ohippo.blogspot.com/2011/01/single-man.html

    GOPROUD, along with BDB and Bruce, are removing they cloak of invisibility. And exposing those who are acting out of fear.

    – The Single Man

    Comment by rusty — February 11, 2011 @ 11:08 am - February 11, 2011

  31. I don’t agree with the way Cleta was attacked. She is entitled to her views. Who cares why she has them? This is America and we have the freedom of religion, freedom of choice, etc.

    I am gay, and I am a proponent of traditionalist things such as marriage. Does that make me a nasty bigot? Apparently so. I’m also a proud supporter of the Heritage Foundation. Check two.

    Comment by Kyle — February 11, 2011 @ 11:13 am - February 11, 2011

  32. Heliotrope > Nothing is more underwhelming than a person whose brain is operated by stimulating Mr. Happy.

    TWO BIG SNAPS then with hands on hips.

    But this is even better. . . I see beads and feathers. Lots of feathers. And a very saucy strutter with a bitch streak a mile wide.

    Heliotrope, you are certainly getting very close to attaining that honorary ‘GAY Card’.

    Comment by rusty — February 11, 2011 @ 11:16 am - February 11, 2011

  33. The Auntie of All Dogma:

    If your Chris Barron tweet is honest, I would submit that his remarks are very much like your own. You must see some reflection of a kindred spirit.

    My str8 self knows many gays who are probably liberal. However, they are all comfortable in their own skins and do not flamboyantly flaunt their gay persona. I say they are “probably” liberal because most of them keep their politics to themselves. Successful people know that mixing politics with business is not a good recipe.

    You, The Auntie of All Dogma, always show up here to pee on the party. What makes you do that? Are you really so secure in your belief system that you need no allies? Can you achieve your gay dreams by the force of power? Or, are you just screaming at monsters under your bed?

    You never engage in debate. We all know why. You can’t.

    Now, to feed your need for bigotry, people like you, Countervail, Adams, et. al. are so profoundly obvious, such small peddlers of trite demagoguery, so programmed to avoid integrity that you create the stereotype of Chris Barron’s alleged tweet that fits you like a glove.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2011 @ 11:29 am - February 11, 2011

  34. Everyone, left and right – everyone but you – recalls just how fundamental hatred of homosexuals was to the Reagan presidency.

    I was alive then and no, I don’t recall that. Are you from a different timeline?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 11, 2011 @ 11:34 am - February 11, 2011

  35. The truth that anyone with half an ounce of self-respect could see from miles away:

    You. Are. Not. Wanted.

    Goodness, is that the sound of the pot calling the kettle black?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 11, 2011 @ 11:35 am - February 11, 2011

  36. (Adams being unwanted by many Democrats / leftists; and being a purveyor of foolishness which is probably unwanted in many other places.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 11, 2011 @ 11:38 am - February 11, 2011

  37. Thanks, Rusty. We all know who we want to represent our better sides, gay or not. And we certainly know that walking around “flashing” people is no way to win friends and influence people.

    There is little that characterizes any gay that isn’t found in spades in the straight world as well. We just don’t get to blame it on “orientation.” We have to own our idiocy or blame some tangental condition of victimhood.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2011 @ 11:39 am - February 11, 2011

  38. Adams,

    I don’t remember Reagan as the ultimate gay hater. Thanks for the information.

    Do you have anything on Gandhi as a war-monger or Martin Luther King as a self-loathing black man?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2011 @ 11:42 am - February 11, 2011

  39. #28: Does anyone here have even a scintilla of doubt that Auntie Hogwash has on dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of occasions claimed that the religious right is more dangerous/threatening/scary than Al-Qaeda/terrorists? Didn’t think so.

    Comment by Sean A — February 11, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - February 11, 2011

  40. Here’s a fascinating bit of background from Pam Spaulding that helps explain why GOP power attorney Cleta Mitchell (who represented Bishop Harry Jackson and his cohorts in the fight over D.C.’s marriage equality law) has such a problem with gay people: She was married in the 1980s to a man who turned out to be gay, and whom she divorced.

    So she’s aware of the fact that gays and lesbians are liars, that gays and lesbians don’t value commitment OR marriage, and that gays and lesbians believe that irresponsibility should be promoted and rewarded.

    She’s also aware that the Obama Party promotes and supports the promiscuity and irresponsibility in which gays and lesbians operate.

    The really entertaining part is how Rick Rosendall and Pam Spaulding and their commenters are attacking her rather than calling the ex-husband who lied to her and put her in danger due to his practices of having bareback and unsafe sex with multiple partners an irresponsible louse. It just goes to show how there is no behavior that gay and lesbian people will not excuse when practiced by a gay or lesbian person, and how gay and lesbian people do not value either commitment or responsibility.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2011 @ 12:39 pm - February 11, 2011

  41. Sean, if that was what The Auntie of All Dogma was told to say, that is what she said. She never thinks a thinking for herself at all. Not really capable of it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2011 @ 12:40 pm - February 11, 2011

  42. I have long believed it best to address your friends’ faults in private and your enemies’ in public.

    That’s an interesting way to put it. I would say that it is best to address friends’ faults without humiliating them. I may let myself address a friend’s fault in public, for example disagreeing with his position or actions on a political blog, provided I do so with respect or without trying to zing or degrade him. With “enemies”, i.e. people whom I have reason to hold in low esteem, humiliation is optional: still nothing I should ever want or strive for, but also I something I am less concerned to avoid.

    So, for my part, I reserve the right to disagree with anybody, in public or not. But if they are a friend, then as a manifestation of that friendship, I will put a much greater degree of thought/effort into avoiding any appearance of humiliating them or undermining them personally. In cases where I am not making such an effort, I’m OK with the other person inferring that I must have a low opinion of them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 11, 2011 @ 1:42 pm - February 11, 2011

  43. “The gay left = the American Taliban. Hateful, angry and dumb as shit.”

    I’ll drink to that.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 11, 2011 @ 2:53 pm - February 11, 2011

  44. “So she’s aware of the fact that gays and lesbians are liars, that gays and lesbians don’t value commitment OR marriage, and that gays and lesbians believe that irresponsibility should be promoted and rewarded.”

    ND30: You forget to include that she knows ALL (including you, I presume) lesbians and gays bring children to the Folsom Street Fair in dog chains every day of the year.

    I can’t believe you forgot to include this fact. Are your meds out of balance?

    Comment by Brendan — February 11, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - February 11, 2011

  45. Awww you guys really love giving shelter to bigots.
    Shame on him apologizing, when will he apologize to Dan Savage and gays everywhere?

    Comment by Dooms — February 11, 2011 @ 5:19 pm - February 11, 2011

  46. Are any of you actually gay or am I the only one?

    Comment by Dooms — February 11, 2011 @ 5:20 pm - February 11, 2011

  47. When, Dooms, will Dan Savage apologize to the conservatives he so regularly maligns?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 11, 2011 @ 5:23 pm - February 11, 2011

  48. Ok, seriously. The problem isn’t conservatism, whatever that is supposed to mean. The real issue is heterosexual supremacism. I have a huge problem with giving aid and apology for this form of bigotry, whether is comes from Rick Santorum or Barack Obama. Anyone who espouses the idea that straights are superior to gays (and deserve a superior legal status and superior privileges) can not be our ally, regardless of their beliefs. There is a point where we as same-sex attracted people must draw the line and say that we can not be demeaned and expected to break bread with those who consider us less-than. I strongly believe in cultivating allies from all part of the political spectrum, which is why it is positive that GOProud is at CPAC (for this year at least). But when those “allies” spread lies about gay people, work diligently to stigmatize us in public life, and press for laws which give us disdain and themselves undeserved privileges, they cease to be any kind of ally and become enemies. As enemies, they should be constantly countered, and their frustrated in their deeds against us. All gay political organizations, left and right, should be united in this when they interact with their wider communities.

    Comment by Jeremy — February 11, 2011 @ 5:50 pm - February 11, 2011

  49. oops, and extra “their” in the second to last sentence.

    Comment by Jeremy — February 11, 2011 @ 5:51 pm - February 11, 2011

  50. Dooms, you clearly equate “gay” with “politically and culturally left-wing”. Your question makes a lot more sense, when that equation is substituted:

    Are any of you actually gay politically and culturally left-wing, or am I the only one?

    It’s wonderful how often a question answers itself, when it’s stated properly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 11, 2011 @ 6:04 pm - February 11, 2011

  51. Anyone who espouses the idea that straights are superior to gays (and deserve a superior legal status and superior privileges) can not be our ally, regardless of their beliefs.

    I dont know of anyone who says straights are superior to gays. I know of a lot of people, I’m one of them, I think most rational human beings are, who recognize the simple biological fact that heterosexuality, or heterosexual sex, is FAR more consequential and important to society than homosexuality.

    In fact, I think the entire debate over gay marriage is an attempt by the majority of gays to get government to endorse their delusion that homosexuality IS equivalent to heterosexuality. I have every single one of the billions of human lives on Earth throughout all of history to homosexuality’s ZERO as proof that they are not equal.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 11, 2011 @ 6:04 pm - February 11, 2011

  52. Dooms, no, you are not the only one who is gay. You are the only one who thinks it makes him a victim.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 11, 2011 @ 6:06 pm - February 11, 2011

  53. No, I want the government to stop declaring that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, and take a proper, neutral stance. We can argue all day long as to whether or not whites are superior to blacks, or Christianity is superior to Islam, or men are superior to women. You may even come up with compelling arguments that would make a lot of people uncomfortable. But a government, which is governed and belongs to all individuals, should not be allowed to make laws which make a definite statement of superiority. This is what it does when it gives official sanction to a religious rite, and ties to it economic and legal benefits, and then declares only heterosexual couples may take part in it.

    I don’t disagree that heterosexuals’ intimate relations are more troublesome for society than our own. And I understand that the government has a vested interest in regulating their activities. But wholesale excluding our people from any form of government recognition for our families, and/or giving our people’s marriages and families inferior status, does not in anyway advance society’s interest in regulating straights’ conduct. And I would be interested one day to here a compelling argument as to how excluding gay couples from marriage advances the interest of regulating straight people’s lust.

    Comment by Jeremy — February 11, 2011 @ 6:27 pm - February 11, 2011

  54. AE just for you. . .Lessons in Grace From Maurice Mannion-Vanover –
    http://kids.baristanet.com/2011/01/a-tribute-to-maurice-and-rocky/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/nyregion/24towns.html

    Comment by rusty — February 11, 2011 @ 7:05 pm - February 11, 2011

  55. Yes, I’m familiar with the story. Very wonderful people. What does that have to do with anything I’ve said?

    Comment by American Elephant — February 11, 2011 @ 7:58 pm - February 11, 2011

  56. I take it back, Dooms, you are not the only victim. You were the only one at the time acting the victim. Unfortunately there are millions of gays pretending to be victims when they are not. Just most of them aren’t conservatives.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 11, 2011 @ 8:00 pm - February 11, 2011

  57. Jeremy,

    You can marry anyone you like. Do you need to have the very few legal guidelines posted? (No close relatives, no under age, one at a time, mutual agreement.)

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2011 @ 8:26 pm - February 11, 2011

  58. Shame on him apologizing, when will he apologize to Dan Savage and gays everywhere?

    Why should he need to apologize to Dan Savage? Was there a juicy catfight that I missed?

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2011 @ 5:25 am - February 12, 2011

  59. But wholesale excluding our people from any form of government recognition for our families, and/or giving our people’s marriages and families inferior status, does not in anyway advance society’s interest in regulating straights’ conduct.

    Jeremy, imagine a young man in his early 20s who’s a solid “Kinsey 3″ — i.e., a 50/50 bisexual who finds himself equally attracted to women and to men. This young man (let’s call him Jack) could potentially be happy in a long-term monogamous relationship with Alice, or in a long-term monogamous relationship with Bob.

    Is it your belief that the government should be absolutely indifferent to whether Jack pairs up with Alice or whether he pairs up with Bob? And do you think there’s NO rational basis for a State to show some favoritism to a “Jack and Alice” pairing, and perhaps give it a more elevated legal status than a “Jack and Bob” pairing, in order to nudge Jack in the direction of choosing Alice?

    I don’t know how many “Kinsey 3″ bisexuals there are actually are in America, but assuming for the sake of argument that they significantly outnumber “Kinsey 6″ homosexuals like me, I think it would make sense for the government to give these bisexual people at least some incentive to prefer heterosexual couplehood (without forcing them to be hetero, and without excessively burdensome disincentives if they choose homosexual couplehood). Because, obviously, heterosexual households (on average) are more likely to raise children — who are the next generation of workers and taxpayers.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2011 @ 6:59 am - February 12, 2011

  60. Ouch!

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/02/dont-goproud-just-go-away-a-withdrawal-of-support.html

    Comment by The Other Peter H — February 12, 2011 @ 9:27 am - February 12, 2011

  61. Throbert, the last info I saw was that male Kinsey 3′s are rare. That men, more than women, will tend to have a distinct preference to one gender or another.

    A new trend in the 21st century is the “mostly straight” male: the guy who knows he is basically straight, but is capable of noticing good-looking guys and fooling around with them from time to time, but then he really is basically straight as he still prefers girls and ultimately settles with one.

    I think it’s real because other cultures have had many such men for centuries, without dying out and without the men ceasing to be straight (or ceasing to marry ultimately). For example, I’ve heard that in traditional Islamic societies where girls are simply *not* available sexually until marriage, there is a lot of pre-marital male homosexuality, that doesn’t stop any of the guys from preferring women. “Eating spaghetti won’t change you into an Italian.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 1:34 pm - February 12, 2011

  62. (continued) So my point is, there might be a lot of Kinsey 1 – 2 males out there. And, in being ultimately true to their preference, they will settle with girls. But large numbers of Kinsey 3 males, who must be influenced into a heterosexual choice by law? Color me skeptical.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 1:38 pm - February 12, 2011

  63. How many folks consider benefits and what not before they get married, though? Sure there are those who decide that it’s more feasible to just “live in sin”, as it were, but do people really give it all that much thought?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2011 @ 4:40 am - February 13, 2011

  64. 63.How many folks consider benefits and what not before they get married, though? Sure there are those who decide that it’s more feasible to just “live in sin”, as it were, but do people really give it all that much thought?

    Hardly any. People usually don’t think about things that are taken for granted. Take it away, and I think you’ll find that people will give it some thought.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2011 @ 11:49 am - February 13, 2011

  65. Like all things, there is usually more than one side to a story. The comment in the Metro weekly was ill-timed and may have been a bit over the top. It was offensive but I still can not find where the Right To Not Be Offended is enshrined. This may shed a bit more light on the issue. http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/18623/why-conservative-power-attorney-cleta-mitchell-bashes-goproud-while-her-firm-embraces-diversity
    I have grown tired of the GOProud bashing, politics is not bean bag.

    Comment by OldNuc — February 13, 2011 @ 12:12 pm - February 13, 2011

  66. The comment in the Metro weekly was ill-timed and may have been a bit over the top. It was offensive but I still can not find where the Right To Not Be Offended is enshrined.

    I think it has less to do with the Right To Not Be Offended than it does with the Right To Not Invite Back People Who Go Out Of Their Way To Offend You.

    No one would seriously argue that you are required to invite back party guests who go around insulting other guests, and unfortunately, that’s what GOProud chose to do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2011 @ 5:16 pm - February 13, 2011

  67. Good point, NDT. We have two participants who apparently insulted each other (with one offering an apology). I suppose CPAC has the right to decide which of the two, if either, gets to come back.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2011 @ 5:26 pm - February 13, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.