Conservative commentator Ann Coulter brought today’s audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington to its feet in applause after urging the Republican party to include gays – perhaps getting the last word on the place gays have in the conservative movement after a tussle that pitted social conservatives against libertarians at this year’s conference.
“The left is trying to co-opt gays,” she said. “They should be on our side.”
The fight over the Republican party’s acceptance of gay conservatives and gay rights came to a head at CPAC, after organizers invited the gay conservative group GOProud to be an official participant. Some social conservative groups protested the convention as a result, but gay conservatives and their allies this week declared victory, observing that they were well-received at the event.
More to follow, I’m sure….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Exactly right. Gays, of all people, should be on the side of a government that is pro-liberty at home, and willing to defend its people (e.g. from Islamo-fascists) abroad.
But Barron didn’t help, when he gave that ungracious public interview after seeming to win the “boycott” struggle. I hope he’s learned something.
Gays ‘should be on our side’ really? On one hand, they are more sophisticated than average, have more money, hate paying taxes for stuff they’ll never be allowed to use, and rarely take advantage of the millions of entitlements the ‘straight’ folks consume. Gays who serve the country in the government or the military put up with insufferable conditions, and when they get home and have dinner with their partner/lover/spouse they dine knowing they are denied benefits allowed ‘married’ couples- tax deductions, partners benefits and social security, even the ability to freely visit their loved one in the hospital.
Despite all this, there are plenty of conservative leaning gay folk, who finally leave the room (and the party) in disgust when rabid hateful republicans go off in public about social issues that don’t affect them, and certainly don’t help reduce the deficit.
Ann, tell Santorum, Romney and Palin to think about it for a second. Intertwining social and fiscal issues is exactly what democrats want them to do, they come out on the wrong side of more issues, and push independent conservatives and most gay folks into democratic arms.
If they think they can defeat Obama while they alienate gay men and women and their families (and their money!) they are probably wrong. They’ve fallen right into Obama’s trap railing about marriage, sex, religion and man’s right to decide what women can do. It’s a bad strategy.
Please describe your projected anti-gay views of Sarah Palin.
Well, to be honest, the promotion of same-sex marriage, when you think about it, is at its heart a socially conservative goal. Of course, that means the promotion of actually marrying and living in monogamous relationships, not simply handing out licenses.
Unfortunately, too many of the activists pushing it at best don’t get it, and at worst are actively trying to destroy it. At best, it seems like a simple call for legal benefits-benefits that could be obtained without marriage. The feeling I get is that the activists dream isn’t to see a devoted pair of mommies or daddies taking their kids to Sunday School without anyone batting an eye so much as it is to take a marriage license, shove it in the faces of social conservatives, and say “LOOK! WE WON AND YOU LOST!”
Instead of cheering marriage and fatherhood promotion measures, the most devoted activists scoff at them as useless. Instead of saying “they’re right, marriage is precious, which is why we want it”, they say “Ha! Those idiots think marriage is precious?” Instead of showing the best behavior of married indviduals and couples, they point out the worst. And instead of holding monogamy to a high standard, the very leaders hold “sexual freedom and liberation”.
The reaction on FreeRepublic is just…well, don’t look if you’ve eaten in the past two hours.
My point is, we still have a long, long way to go with most religious conservatives.
Regarding #2. Try not to forget the homosexual/bisexual cronyism that has been rampant in federal government, state agencies, and some aspects of the private sector since the revision of the ALIMPC in 1955. Up until 1998, social conservatives had to be careful so as not to upset the sociopath with the special entitlements. Whereas the homosexual/bisexual left declares unequal opportunity within the workplace, the reality was/is the LGBT line and staff could indiscriminately discharge social conservatives due to their own narcissistic hostility.
”The left is trying to co-opt gays,” she said. “They should be on our side.”
Ditto that. Two issues;
There are two gay liberal activists in my county who are always defending Islam against the evil conservatives. All I can do is shake my head every time I hear them speak. In a rational word the entire damn gay community would be screaming for the nuclear annihilation of half the Muslim world. Gays may have their problems with intolerance in the West, but in any Muslim country…. But instead, again, all too many toe the liberal line on that one too.
Another issue is guns. Of all people, I’d think that for obvious reasons gays would be the most pro-gun of any group. I’d think that all gay people would want “shall issue” laws (if you’re not aware, this pertains to concealed carry) so that they could carry without having to “prove need” to some judge. I carry sometimes, and I’m straight. If I was gay (or a woman) I’d sure as hell carry, and all the time, too. Unfortunately, though, all too many gays toe the liberal line on this issue too. Go figure.
So ignoring idiots like chicklet, yes, I think an alliance can be formed.
#2 chicklet goes all drama
queenknave:Folks, it is not possible to “put up with” conditions which are “insufferable.” It is like surviving a fatal heat attack.
The point is, when one resorts to such dramatic victim crushing language, the whole theme becomes so melodramatic that the word “farce” jumps into open view.
Chicklet! Come back Chicklet! Walk like a man and talk like a man and tell us how Santorum, Romney and Palin “push independent conservatives and most gay folks into democratic arms.”
Oh, yeah, please convince us you are conservative as well.
Its bad tactics in war to concede winnable territories, and since politics is an extension of war, it is bad politics to concede a winnable group of the voting populace.
Not all that ground breaking…
I love that the elephant in the room still isn’t being addressed. Taking the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the Gay Patriot’s stance, Coulter opposes repealing DADT and gay marriage. To include homosexuals in these things is an “attack on the family” and a threat to practical military cohesion, according to her. But since conservatives don’t want to arrest or kill any homosexuals, then they should be on their side. Complete inclusion and fairness is out of the question, but since they won’t bother homosexuals otherwise, then they shouldn’t complain and cavort with liberals.
This would be laughable were it not so sad.
The proponents of same-sex and traditional marriages are needlessly in opposition to each other. Both sides have forgotten the purpose of marriage and the government has become a rudderless accomplice in states’ battles for same-sex marriage and similarly wrongheaded defense-of-marriage amendments in both state and federal constitutions.
Tax policy is one instrument government uses to influence its citizens’ behavior. The antique definition of marriage and the tax policies that favored it have become increasingly dysfunctional as the nation’s demographics changed and the understanding of marriage’s purpose atrophied.
In 1948 the federal tax burden on a family of 4 was 2%. By 1960 it has risen to 12% and 24% by 1990. 1997 estimates of all federal, state, local, social security and medicare taxes approached 40%. At this rate we more resemble alligators eating their young than any great society.
Legislators could start by codifying the definition of dependents to include dependent relatives and contractually-dependent others within a single household. They could then increase the per-dependent deduction to a meaningful amount closer to 2005’s Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines ($9575 for single persons in 2005) than the IRS’ $3200-per-dependent exemption. They should then take whatever that amount is and index it to inflation so it needn’t require an act of congress to keep pace with the economy. Using $9000/dependent a household of four would require a combined income exceeding $36,000 before the lowest tax rates take affect.
“Old” marriage simply no longer works as a proxy for parents-raising-the-next-generation. Change the focus, change the argument, and there will be less debate about who can marry whom.
#14: “The proponents of same-sex and traditional marriages are needlessly in opposition to each other. Both sides have forgotten the purpose of marriage and the government has become a rudderless accomplice in states’ battles for same-sex marriage and similarly wrongheaded defense-of-marriage amendments in both state and federal constitutions.”
Ummm…how do I put this diplomatically…uh…BULLSHIT! Conservatives have not forgotten the purpose of marriage and neither has the gay left. The liberals just want the purpose of marriage to be thrown onto the ash-pile of history by judicial fiat so that they can substitute a new “purpose” of their own design which is: making gays feel better about themselves through government validation of their relationships and knocking religious conservatives down a peg or two through government confirmation that heterosexual unions are no more significant or special than any other.
And that is why your belief that the contentious debate could recede and evolve through legislative changes based on taxation is BUNK. The Prop. 8 battle was fought in California where same-sex couples have had government-recognized domestic partnerships available to them since 2005. California’s DP law gives individuals in registered same-sex partnerships the status of “spouse” under state law–that means community property rights, rights to spousal and child support at dissolution, custody and visitation rights, state tax benefits, the works. But it made absolutely no difference to the gay left and its desire for a public, divisive constitutional battle in the courts against purported “H8TERS.”
Your suggestion would work if the debate had EVER really been about rights, but it’s NOT. For the gay left, it has ALWAYS been about validation and using the courts to put religious conservatives in their place.
Verily.
I dig your rap, baby.
#12 Dartheyeddesolve:
So, Gay Marriage is war, is it? Anyone who is gay and is not fighting the war for gay marriage is…… what?
It is also bad tactics in war to specialize in kamikaze assaults as your leading strategy.
Funny….wasn’t it your beloved Reagan who embraced the religious right in his bid for presidency and helped get us to this point of the anti-gay rhetoric that has festered in the Republican party for decades?
18.Funny….wasn’t it your beloved Reagan who embraced the religious right in his bid for presidency and helped get us to this point of the anti-gay rhetoric that has festered in the Republican party for decades?
No.
#18: Yeah, Kevin. If by “embraced the religious right” you mean took an uncompromising, politically-risky position AGAINST the Briggs Initiative that was decisive in its defeat just before running for President. I know it’s hard for you to imagine that kind of political courage since it doesn’t exist on the Left. (You can’t even get OBAMA to sign on to gay marriage for pete’s sake!)
Meanwhile, there’s an “Ann Coulter’s Gays” group on FB now.
Ann Coulter:
* Does not support gay marriage – Homocon
* Does not support sex education, especially that includes information on gay men and women because it would lead to teacher informing kindergarten children about “fisting” – Homocon
* Is vehemently against DADT, insinuating that any gay in the military will turn into a swishy Bradley Manning the second they hear a Donna Summer song – anncoulter.com 12/1/10
* Declared it an “indisputably true point” that sodomy (gay sex) is akin to “adultery, polygamy, and any number of sex acts prohibited by the states.” – “How to Talk to a Liberal”
* Agrees with Scalia that laws against sodomy are constitutionally acceptable, calling the Lawrence v. Texas decisions “insane” – Mike Huckabee Show 12/20/07
I can’t find specific references but I can assume she doesn’t support hate crimes litigation, or protection against discrimination in jobs and housing for gay men and women as well.
Why exactly should gay men and women, as she says, be on conservative’s side? She supports you not being able to legally wed your spouse, that you cannot serve openly in the military, and that a state could legally prosecute you for having same-sex sexual relations. By extension you can assume she supports business owners being able to fire employees on the basis of sexual orientation, landlords being able to deny housing on the basis of sexual orientation, adoption agencies being able to deny adoptions to gay men and women, partners of gay parents, and would support the state removing children from gay households.
It’s not clear to me why “gays belong in the conservative movement” unless they’re basically willing to drop the gay part. Why is Ann Coulter so confident? After reading her Bradley Manning article, maybe she thinks gays belong in the conservative movement so they have better decorations next year (cause we all know how to decorate) or so that she can finally get a decently made drink (because we’re all a bunch of drunks) or that we can all give more money (since we all have a gazillion extra dollars lying around just like Elton John). Oh thithter! Your. Hair. Looks. FABULOOOOUUUSSS girlfriend! Leths go to TheePac tho we can thee how to be fabulously wealthy thecond clath thitizens!
“Conservatives have not forgotten the purpose of marriage and neither has the gay left. The liberals just want the purpose of marriage to be thrown onto the ash-pile of history by judicial fiat so that they can substitute a new “purpose” of their own design which is: making gays feel better about themselves through government validation of their relationships and knocking religious conservatives down a peg or two through government confirmation that heterosexual unions are no more significant or special than any other.”
BINGO, Sean A! You hit the proverbial nail on the head withthat paragraph. Validation and “knocking religious [and social] conservatives down a peg or two” ARE the ONLY reasons for the push for gay marriage. It has nothing to do with the “meaning” of the institution, as B. Daniel sometimes says SSM proponents should say. I suspect those are also the real reasons underlying the push for inclusion of gays in the conservative movement. This will give gays the opportunity to knock down religious and social conservatives on their own turf, and then turn that turf into a new outlet for the agenda of the social Left. No wonder gays are ecstatic about attending CPAC.
This will give gays the opportunity to knock down religious and social conservatives on their own turf, and then turn that turf into a new outlet for the agenda of the social Left. No wonder gays are ecstatic about attending CPAC.
That is a very interesting take, Seane-Anna. So besides gay people being on the sidelines for marriage, they should also be on the sidelines in the conservative movement as well. I’m sure Sean A and others will appreciate that. Well, at least he got it right on SSM though. You really know how to make allies, let me tell you.
Pat, gays are a miniscule sex group, a niche demographic which is no more than 5% of the population, if that. Pat, you talk a lot about rationality. How rational is it that that 5% should have the power to drag the other 95% around by the nose? How rational is it that the traditional moral/family values of an entire culture should be upended, derided, and/or discredited in order to normalize and mainstream the sexual lifestyle of that 5% fringe? It’s not rational, Pat, not by a long shot.
The rational thing to do vis-a-vis the gay niche of our population is to offer what gays have spent a generation claiming they wanted: tolerance. Tolerance, as I’ve said before, isn’t endorsement, approval, or applause; but neither is it discrimination, condemnation, or persecution. I gave an example of how such tolerance might operate in real life, and here’s another one.
After a disastrous raid on Mormon polygamists in Arizona in the ’50’s, Arizona and especially Utah, the state with the most polygamists, took a hands-off approach to the polygamists in their midst. So long as accusations of real crimes like child abuse, domestic violence, or welfare fraud weren’t being made, Utah and Arizona state officials left the polygamists alone. They didn’t arrest them just for their non-traditional domestic lifestyle. The polygamists, for their part, quietly practiced their fringe domestic arrangment without demanding that the monogamous majority change it’s understanding of marriage and claiming persecution when it didn’t. That’s how tolerance can and should work: accomodating the difference of the minority without upending the values of the majority. But I know you’ll never agree with that, Pat.
Seane-Anna, I’m sure you are aware that polygamy is against the law, and for good reason. For one thing, the polygamy you described is inherently degrading to women as I think you would even agree. Among other things, women did not have the choice to take on another husband. So, maybe that type of behavior was considered tolerable in the 50s, but not so today, including by the Mormon Church.
Subjugation used to be tolerated in this country. Heck, women didn’t even have the right to vote as recent as 100 years ago. But this is no longer tolerable. Times change. Now, not only is homosexuality tolerated by almost all, it is accepted by a clear majority of people. People don’t even have to change their religious values in order to be able to do that. Heck, most people in this country believe that Jesus Christ is their savior, but don’t require others to hold that belief by making it a law. No need to, right? Because you were able to demonstrate how you can tolerate people who don’t regard Jesus as their savior?
But all of this is besides the point. It wasn’t about rehashing the debate that we were having. It was about taking someone who is a gay conservative, who apparently not only agreed with you about SSM, but also the reasons behind it. But you couldn’t stop there. You then had to essentially tell him that he has no place as a conservative (but at least you do apparently tolerate him, whoopie). What do you do for an encore?
25.Pat, gays are a miniscule sex group, a niche demographic which is no more than 5% of the population, if that. Pat, you talk a lot about rationality. How rational is it that that 5% should have the power to drag the other 95% around by the nose?
Seane-Anna, again, this was beside my original point, but I’ll address this since you brought it up. I agree that it isn’t rational that 5% should have the power to drag the other 95% around by the nose, as you say. Because, in fact, that is not what happened. What happened was that an increasing number of people believed that either homosexuality is not a sin or that their belief that it is a sin should have no be pushed onto others. So, we are in the majority now. You think we are going to stop at mere tolerance? Now that would be irrational.
How rational is it that the traditional moral/family values of an entire culture should be upended, derided, and/or discredited in order to normalize and mainstream the sexual lifestyle of that 5% fringe?
Traditional values cannot be upended, etc., by 5% of the population. Gay people do not have that power. However, what most people believe is that gay children should have the chance to pursue the same type of goals that their straight children have. No longer are the days where it is acceptable for gay children to be excoriated by their parents, schools, churches, etc.
here you go Seanne Anna
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfobL3900wI
and yes, gays are roughly 5% of the general pop, but lest not forget their parents, their sibs, their friends, their colleagues, their fellows at their house of worship, their children. . .etc etc etc.
Mere tolerance, Pat? If tolerance is “mere”, then why did gays raise all that sturm und drang about it for 30 years? And you’re not going to stop at “mere tolerance”? So what’s next? Outlawing any disapproval of your libido? Making it a “hate” crime to for preachers to say that homosexuality is a sin? Requiring all children to be taught that homosexuality is awesome? What are your plans, Pat? How totalitarian do you plan to get?
And Pat, you seem to think the change in attitude toward homosexuality was just some natural, evolutionary progression into superior thinking. Well, it wasn’t. It was the result of constant, well-funded, well-organized, melodramatic, and often mean-spirited agitation by gays against traditional values and for rebranding of traditionalists as evil bigots. In short, it was a political process and Pat, there’s nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to stop that same process from being employed by other aberrant sex groups. So while you sit there smug in your perceived victory, get prepared for the Pandora’s box you’ve opened and for the other sexual outsiders to be as unwilling to accept “mere tolerance” as you are.
One more thing, Pat. Thank you for being open about your disdain for tolerance. It shows that gays lied for 30 years when they claimed that tolerance was what they wanted.
Rusty, pedophiles, polygamists, polyamorists, people who practice incest, etc., also have parents, sibs, friends, colleagues, fellows at their house of worship, children, etc. Get ready for them.
Seane-Anna, your replies dripped with desperation and some outright silliness, but there are some good points to address, so here I go.
29.Mere tolerance, Pat? If tolerance is “mere”, then why did gays raise all that sturm und drang about it for 30 years? And you’re not going to stop at “mere tolerance”?
Yes, I guess we gays broke one of the Ten Commandments with that one, didn’t we. Just like women did 100 years ago. In fact, you get to reap the rewards because women didn’t stop at mere tolerance. You know what? God gets it. One of these days, you’ll understand as well. Usually correcting social injustices take a bit of time. You have to start somewhere.
So what’s next? Outlawing any disapproval of your libido? Making it a “hate” crime to for preachers to say that homosexuality is a sin?
Nah, won’t be necessary. I mean, it would be like throwing people in jail who dared challenge the Church. Oops, that used to happen a lot (are you sorry to see that tradition go by the wayside in this country?). Actually, what will most likely happen is that disapproval will gradually become virtually non-existent and fewer and fewer preachers will state and believe that homosexuality is a sin. Sure, there some fringe hangers-on obsessed about sex, but most people will be able to go on their business. Who knows, maybe you will be able to as well.
Requiring all children to be taught that homosexuality is awesome?
Not quite. Require that homosexuality is no better or no worse than heterosexuality. Yes, I know where babies come from. But there should be no shame for a child growing up thinking he may be gay, and there should be the same encouragement that we give our straight children in terms of dating, finding the right person, etc., including those who cannot or do not want to have children. For the record, I do think homosexuality is awesome, just like most straight people think heterosexuality is awesome. If you don’t think your sexuality is awesome, your problem, not mine.
How totalitarian do you plan to get?
Nowhere near as totalitarian as you are.
30.And Pat, you seem to think the change in attitude toward homosexuality was just some natural, evolutionary progression into superior thinking.
Of course it was. But most Middle East potentates agree with you. Oh well.
Well, it wasn’t. It was the result of constant, well-funded, well-organized, melodramatic, and often mean-spirited agitation by gays against traditional values and for rebranding of traditionalists as evil bigots.
Really? Five percent of us have all that power? Sorry that your side wasn’t able to convince your former allies that homosexuality is a sin, etc. As for meanspiritedness, your side has done a pretty damn good job with that as well. I’m afraid that many on your side have treated homosexuals like crap. Do you really expect oppressed people to not ever lash back? Do you realize that America became a country because people didn’t behave as you believe they should have?
In short, it was a political process and Pat, there’s nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to stop that same process from being employed by other aberrant sex groups.
Yeah, I guess it all started when the political process allowed women to become equal partners in our country. So while your fighting against gay rights, I’m sure you’ll want to turn back the clock on women’s rights as well. Since your views on homosexuality are aberrant, I’m sure you have dim views on women as well.
So while you sit there smug in your perceived victory, get prepared for the Pandora’s box you’ve opened and for the other sexual outsiders to be as unwilling to accept “mere tolerance” as you are.
Yeah, there is some smugness there, I have to admit. But not smug enough to realize that there is always that slight chance it can be taking away. But that’s okay. I’ve survived quite well while on the minority side. You can survive too if you want.
31.One more thing, Pat. Thank you for being open about your disdain for tolerance. It shows that gays lied for 30 years when they claimed that tolerance was what they wanted.
You’re welcome. But as I suggested above, you should know that I’m in good company. In 1215, the people in England just wanted a little power transferred from the king to the barons. But those gosh darned liars didn’t stop at that. People eventually wanted full participation in governance. Same for women, Black persons. How dare people demand human rights. And worse, work for it one step at a time.
People have figured out gradually that there is no reason to restrict rights on gay persons. The majority could have put on the brakes at any time, and still could. In fact, that did happen with polygamy in this country. It has never gone beyone mere tolerance, and in fact, it’s not really tolerated at all. Especially the “traditional” form.
32.Rusty, pedophiles, polygamists, polyamorists, people who practice incest, etc., also have parents, sibs, friends, colleagues, fellows at their house of worship, children, etc.
Except for maybe polyamorists, none of these are tolerated. I suppose we could make a law that says one cannot have a sexual relationship with more than one person at a time, but I’m afraid that would be a totalitarian thing.
Is the door open for the others? Sure, it was always open (see polygamy). But those groups will have to make their case, but I doubt they will be able to. Homosexuals did, and the majority agreed. I don’t think it’s fair to continue a social injustice, because of fear.
And in the latest example of how gays and lesbians “value” marriage, the gay and lesbian community is now demanding and performing stunt marriages to make a public spectacle.
Personally, I would think that if gays and lesbians valued marriage, they wouldn’t be openly entering into or promoting sham marriages like this. But as we see, this is nothing more than a pathetic temper tantrum on the part of liberal gays who have nothing but contempt for the value of marriage as an institution and who care only about melodramatics for the camera.
Some interesting points, at varying levels of humour in this post. Most of the arguments come down to emotional appeals. Which is fine, not my blog, and I’m taking up bandwidth with this post (thank you GP and Dan for this privilige).
#34 NDT: quite so. Like coaches tell their players: behave like you’re born to be in the end zone. Grace, and a modicum of manners goes a great distance with almost zero investment by him, her or them demonstrating grace.
What I haven’t really seen (and where I’m wrong, please point me to a source):
The fiscal conservative asks: how much is having hate crimes on the books costing me? I think too many heads on both sides of the aisle would explode if folks were actually treated equally, as befits a country with an egalitarian past.
I’d like to see the fiscal conservative’s take on the cost, or savings, of the repeal of DADT, SSM, homosexual education of children in public schools, and of a foreign policy that actively stands for freedom of homosexuals world-wide.
Does GOProud have an analysis section? Who’s crunching the numbers? Where are the comparisons and contrasts between conservative and progressive (and even centrist) gay political groups?
I’m not seeing smart folks use their heads to explain to me how GOProud and AFRC are fellow travelers. They are in many ways, but so far haven’t found anything from GOProud showing it to be so.
I just want to say that Chris Barron, chairman of the board of GOProud, is damn fine.