Although I returned earlier today from my mini-vacation, I have yet to weigh in on the decision of CPAC to exclude our friends at GOProud. This is sad news indeed and a sign that some conservatives would rather dwell on trivial issues than focus on our common conservatives principles. Although, by and large, rank-and-file “movement” conservatives (particularly those born since 1960) have become increasingly welcome of their gay fellows, there still are pockets in the movement who would exclude folks like us.
And some of those pockets have considerable sway in the conservative movement today.
We here at GayPatriot share the disappointment of GOProud’s Board who released a statement earlier today:
We are deeply disappointed at the decision of the American Conservative Union to bar GOProud from participating in CPAC. They are well within their right to do so, but a decision like this will have consequences.
For the last two years, GOProud has sought to support CPAC and keep the conservative movement united. . . .
What is truly sad is that this troubling development takes place at a time when we should be united and focused on defeating Barack Obama.
It is unfortunate at this time of remarkable unity among conservatives and Republicans about the need to focus on the principles Ronald Reagan articulated throughout his political career, cutting the size of the federal government, reducing its scope, returning power to individuals and the associations they choose to join or otherwise support that some would seek to exclude an organization committed to those ideals.
We are delighted to note that a number of leading “new media” conservatives have decided to boycott CPAC as a result of the decision to exclude GOProud as Glenn Reynolds reports:
ANDREW BREITBART WILL SKIP CPAC over its GOProud ban.
Roger Simon is boycotting too. And I won’t be there either. Of course, I don’t usually go anyway.
NICK ADDS: Great to see Breitbart standing with us. The true sign, however, will be to see what Ann Coulter does.
The only thing I would disagree with is that we should be focused on defeating Barack Obama.
He is only one of many Democrats who would enact the same policies. If he were struck by lightning tomorrow, I would not expect VP Biden (or for that matter Pelosi, Reid, or any other likely Dem candidate) to have different policies, especially on the one big issue that matters — cutting the budget.
Conversely, there are many Republicans who spend just as freely as Democrats. If Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani replaced Obama tomorrow it wouldn’t change a thing — except that now we’d be getting the blame for all that spending. If the GOP nominates someone like that (in which I include any mayor or governor whose budget increased while he was in office), then screw the GOP: I’ll vote for the Libertarian Party candidate and let Obama go on taking the blame for the spending.
What we all need to focus on is cutting the budget. Not just slowing its rate of increase but actually cutting it.
In the meantime, anyone who votes to raise the debt ceiling goes on the “screw” list, as above, no matter what deal is offered in return. Even the improved Boehner plan is worthless because Congress will simply disregard it once enacted, just as they did Gramm-Rudman.
The time to stop spending is right now. The debt limit must not be raised. Ever again. No matter what the cost.
(Default is unlikely regardless: the government collects more every month than it pays in interest.)
Mr Blatt, could you give us some commentary at the report done by Red State?: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/
Reading it is interesting, but Red State isn’t a sight that I can bring myself to frequent with any kind of regularity, and while I know they’re popular I don’t have a real measure for their reliability. At least some of the claims they make about GOProud are hard to swallow, especially in light of your coverage.
**site, not sight. Le sigh. /eyeroll
Gotta love the acceptance of the “big tent.” Sad to see this happen, but not unexpected with Barrin’s “bigot” comment earlier this year.
It is unfortunate at this time of remarkable unity among conservatives and Republicans about the need to focus on the principles Ronald Reagan articulated throughout his political career, cutting the size of the federal government, reducing its scope, returning power to individuals and the associations they choose to join or otherwise support that some would seek to exclude an organization committed to those ideals.
It is also unfortunate that GOProud’s leadership chose, rather than focusing on those topics, to attack CPAC’s board and leadership – and to repeat the mistake of calling them bigots and comparing them to racists today.
CPAC should be under no requirement to invite or support the participation of people who attack them. And GOProud needs to take responsibility for their actions, accept the consequences, and move on.
Seems to me that fracturing the conservative movement is stupid.
If we don’t get government contained and the economy moving, culture war issues will be academic.
Gotta love the acceptance of the “big tent.”
Excuse me? Why should CPAC be required to “accept” people who attack and insult them?
This is your fundamental problem, aj; you seem to think that gays and lesbians should get some kind of special treatment and dispensation because they’re gay.
This is what equal treatment looks like. No organization would be invited back after making the kind of attacks that GOProud made. You obviously can’t handle equal treatment and in fact want special treatment based on your sexual orientation.
NDT, did you actually read the rest of my statement? I mentioned their attack and that being the reason behind their sponsorship being revoked. CPAC has no obligation to work woth anyone, especially those that attack them.
Just pointing out that the conservative movement might not be as accepting as people here tried to say it is. Especially since Goproud agreeable with conservatives “on 80% of conservative principles.”
Indeed I did, aj, and that’s why I called you out on it.
You admit that what GOProud did was wrong — and then turn around and bash conservatives for actually treating them as if what they did was wrong.
Only a child blames other people for their being punished for doing something wrong. You are a child.
“Excuse me? Why should CPAC be required to “accept” people who attack and insult them?”
Nope, CPAC doesn’t have to “accept” anyone. But you would think if they would welcome any gay people — it would be the gays who don’t make a big deal about their sexual orientation, and focus on the bread & butter issues of conservatism. If I’m not mistaken, both Jimmy LaSalvia & Chris Barron have gotten to great lengths to emphasize how GOProud doesn’t “promote the gay agenda.” GOProud spends most of its time attacking liberals & gay people. You would think CPAC would love GOProud.
But no. North Dallas Thirty can continue his constant obsession with “gay sex liberals” and pedophilia, but the truth is that gay conservatives are not accepted by a sizeable (and powerful) chunk of the “conservative movement.” Republicans would love gay conservatives to keep on attacking gay people. But you will not be warmly welcomed into the Republican Party, especially during an election year when Republicans need to appeal to religious conservatives.
You’ll probably say that you’re “not looking for acceptance from Republicans.” Well good for you. Enjoy attending CPAC next year as “individual” participants with no booth, no sponsored events, and no recognition. Conservatives don’t want to hear that you have a boyfriend or a “husbear” of your own at home. It’s a “threat to the American family.”
Or you can always go into reparative therapy and be a part of Exodus International. They’ll have a booth at CPAC next year.
Meanwhile, let me make one thing absolutely and crystal clear: I fully and wholeheartedly support Jimmy, Chris, and the rest of the GOProud board in their mission and in what they are doing. I have had the privilege of meeting Jimmy personally, and had a marvelous time/discussion with him.
But this is the fallout from what happened last year. I understand why Chris and Jimmy were upset and I understand why they said what they did; however, under NO circumstances does that make it right, and it makes what Chuck Muth put up today even more repulsive.
The correct answer in this case is, “Yes, GOProud screwed up last year, and we understand why CPAC is not inviting us back as an organization. We encourage our members to go and to remain focused on what is important, which is cutting the size of the federal government, reducing its scope, and returning power to individuals and the associations they choose to join.”
Period. Then back to work.
North Dallas Thirty can continue his constant obsession with “gay sex liberals” and pedophilia, but the truth is that gay conservatives are not accepted by a sizeable (and powerful) chunk of the “conservative movement.
Meanwhile, jealous gay liberals like James will continue to aim their spite at gay conservatives who demonstrate daily just how little James and his fellow gay liberals traded away their freedom to get.
That’s understandable. Slaves quite often resented free black people.
And this was particularly hilarious.
Enjoy attending CPAC next year as “individual” participants with no booth, no sponsored events, and no recognition.
I’ve heard a lot of narcissistic statements from gay and lesbian people before, but that absolutely takes the cake.
“WAAAAH! If you won’t give me special treatment and kiss my ass, I’m not going! WAAAAAAH!”
“And GOProud needs to take responsibility for their actions, accept the consequences, and move on.”
And they did. Chris Barron apologiezed. And not one of those “if I offended you, I’m sorry” non-apologies. He said what he said was wrong and he apologized for it.
Since I like GOProud I hate to say the following, but… when NDT has kind of a point, he has kind of a point. Chris Barron shouldn’t have shot his mouth off that way, last year. I would like to think that he (and GOProud) made every effort to apologize to CPAC. I don’t know the story there. If they did, then I can see Breitbart’s point. FTR, I admire Breitbart. How’s that for being unsure and playing both sides? heh
Dan: “[S]ome conservatives would rather dwell on trivial issues than focus on our common conservatives principles…”
Me: You mean like some gays would rather dwell on trivial issues (like what they like to do for sex) than focus on our common conservatives principles…”
GOProud like the Log Cabin fags is an oxymoronic idea. Group identity politics (whether feminist, black or gay) have no place in the GOP.
For another opinion:
http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/6-reasons-conservatives-should-embrace-identity-politics/
As the republican tent continues to grow smaller and less welcoming it seems as though republicans are bent on self destruction in more ways than one.
Even this old school conservative welcomes fellow fiscal conservatives regardless of their sexual orientation. It is time we accept individuals for what they are, what they have to offer, and get beyond the stereotypical, the unfounded fears, and the irrational.
Great post. All of us rational thinking conservatives {regardless of age} are ready to join hands with you and accomplish the important goal of unseating Obama in
!
it’s really sad that it happened. but did they lose their sponsorship or actual participation? both are pretty bad, imo, but i’d like to see that clarified… i am not a die-hard goproud fan, but even i can recognize that their voice is important within their political family.
I’m confused on this.
When some conservative groups boycotted CPAC last year you opposed that, Dan, if memory serves. In fact, most of the authors and commenters here opposed that boycott. Yet now, Dan, you applaud the boycott some conservatives are launching against CPAC to protest it banning GOProud from next year’s conference.
Hmmmmm. When boycotts oppose gays, they’re bad; when they’re in support of gays, they’re good. Once again we see the double standard that proves that, for all your professed disdain for “trivial issues”, your sexuality is the center of your politics and your goal is to make conservatism a conduit for the gay agenda.
I highly suspect, Dan, that your “trivial issues” remark is a veiled reference to social liberalism, particularly the gay agenda. You don’t want conservatives to ignore those “trivial issues” because you’re uninterested in them. No, you are fully committed to their triumph. Getting conservatives to ignore “trivial issues” is simply a way to neutralize their opposition and leave the path clear for the social Left to advance. The strategy is pretty plain to see, Dan. I wouldn’t be surprised if thwarting that strategy is the real reason why CPAC banned GOProud.
Well, they are shunning TParty too, they hate Sarah Palin and they think she’s the head of TParty. Proves they don’t even know what TParty is. Even Allen West turned on us, he called us schizophrenic. I don’t even think he knows what that means. There’s a number of talk show hosts like Laura Igraham and so called conservative tv pundits like Bill OReilly came out swinging too. I don’t know what Red States problem is, his commentor’s seemed scared to be by the gays, ppl are so silly sometimes. GoProud should start a new tradition and have one of their on, more will come to theirs 🙂
should of read all the comments, I read Eric’s and he was mild, he just wants to concentrate on the issues and defeating Obama. They way I see it, it’s the Dem/Rep establishment against Sarah Palin and the TParty. The GoP hates us and her the most because she has the record of cleaning corruption up where ever she goes and she doesn’t owe anyone anything except the people. She’s old fashion and authentic because she thinks politicians should serve the people and she has the record to prove it. Some of the GOP and Republicans hate her because she didn’t go to the right college or it’s not her turn they just hate her. Well, tparty/thepeople don’t and she will get elected, she has my vote, I think she’ll kick Obamas ass.
John David Galt, you’d better check your facts before calling Rudy Giuliani a big spender; he may be a social moderate, but he is a fiscal conservative.
Rational Nation, you might want to check your facts; the GOP tent is not growing smaller. More and more Americans are identifying as Republicans — or leaning that way.
And where you say Republicans are bent on self-destruction, I would add an quantitative adjective, in this case, “some,” to modify Republicans in your first paragraph. Yes, some Republican prefer ideological purity to electoral success.
Why confused Seane-Anna? I opposed a boycott led by groups opposed to the inclusion of GOProud. Now, I countenance a boycott led by individuals upset by the exclusion of GOProud.
It’s the difference between inclusion and exclusion.
One more thing, we will need all the help we can get if we want to get rid of Obama. It will be Sarah and all decent people against the GOP, Dems, and all of the thugs of the world. If you think I’m kidding go see Undefeated and see what this woman can do and who we’re up against. It won’t be easy, she’s been vetted inside and out, she’s not afraid and no one else will be able to take what they will do to whoever runs. If she doesn’t win it will be our fault not hers, it’s up to us to fight like hell and this is it, we really won’t get another chance.
I will. I thought it was disappointing that Eric chose not to tell the whole story. Instead, he seems to have chosen to circle the wagons around Mitchell and Heritage and depict them as victims.
As I understand it, Horowitz referred to two of them as part of the Muslim Brotherhood. CPAC considered tossing him too, but decided to keep him.
I won’t speculate as to the reasoning the CPAC board used in their decisions, but it seems to me (and I like Horowitz) that what he said was worse.
Just the sponsorship.
“NICK ADDS: Great to see Breitbart standing with us. The true sign, however, will be to see what Ann Coulter does.”
I certainly could be wrong but I don’t think boycotts have ever been Ann’s style. I think she’s more likely to attend CPAC and in her speech LET THEM HAVE IT (assuming she is one of the speakers, and she usually is).
1. GOProud wont be allowed to sponsor CPAC. They have not been barred.
2. What a strange perspective. Who is not focusing on our common conservative principles and is instead dwelling on trivial issues? The event named after those very conservative principles of which you speak “Conservative Political Action Committee” or the group whose name itself shows that they are an organization focused on the trivial and divisive issue of homosexual identity politics, “GO-Proud”?
Seems to me, CPAC is putting the focus BACK on common conservative principles by removing a controversial, attention-seeking, identity-politics group headed by a loudmouthed embarrassment with a grudge against Christians.
And it is GOProud that is guilty of what you accuse CPAC of.
And while I’m on the topic, identity politics itself is anathema to conservatism. GOProud claims they represent gay conservatives. Excuse me? I didn’t vote for them. I didn’t authorize them to represent me in anything. I didnt authorize them to speak for me, but they presume to speak for gay conservatives as a group. Hell no. That’s exactly what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do for a living. Identity politics.
My congressman represents me, Marco Rubio represents me, Paul Ryan represents me. Allen West Represents me. I dont need a gay person to represent me just because I am gay. I need conservatives to represent me. Conservatives who understand that group “rights” and identity politics have absolutely no place in Constitutional conservatism in the first place.
“It is also unfortunate that GOProud’s leadership chose, rather than focusing on those topics, to attack CPAC’s board and leadership – and to repeat the mistake of calling them bigots and comparing them to racists today.”
Exactly; and further, identity politics is a drag on unity. If we remained trapped in our identity issues(doing the Proggs work for them ie divide and conquer by race, sex, creed)then we’ll never come together to end America’s Economic Road to Ruin.
It’s like Libertarians single-issue only ie legalizing pot;obsessed with ‘free pot’ is not useful toward ending America’s $14 Trillion plus $110 Trillion SS-Medicare Road to Economic Ruin.
Libertarians-pot may make you feel high however it won’t lessen the pain you’ll feel when the American ship called Debt sinks us all.
From the perspective of someone who has never cared that much what other people thought of him, this smacks of teenagers getting all bitchy because the popular kids didn’t invite them to their party.
Yet we still have the homosexual/bisexual leftists erroneously claiming that 70% of the young adults support gay marriage (see 365gay.com). The polls are as unreliable as Gallup polls. I could skew the data to be 70 or 80% if all I did was ask homosexual/bisexual adults on the street or hung out exclusively at gay bars. The liberal bodies of the APAs and the ABA know they crossed the line regarding their attempts to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias to children, k-12, via gay adoption, gay civil unions, and gay marriage. I do not think that they were/are prepared for the amount of pushback they will receive from the heterosexual majority population.
Could it be that CPAC is choosing quantity over quality? I mean, the Family Research Council and Heritage Foundation will bring a lot more warm bodies and cold cash to the 2012 election than GOProud. I don’t like the way this has turned out, but insulting your host is a great way not to be invited to the next dinner party. It’s sad that we can’t all work together to help take down BO, but maybe we can still find common ground as we get closer to the referrendum on Barack.
As much as I hate identity politics, I do not believe society is in a position at the moment for conservatives to completely ignore identity politics. The existence of an organization like GOProud, in my opinion, is good, because its existence lets people know that not all gays are liberal. And it shows to rank-and-file conservatives that not all gay people are liberal, irresponsible, immoral, and/or professional victims.
Having said that, GOProud has proven to be a divisive organization and Chris Barron has been hostile to social conservatives (at least to those who boycotted CPAC when GOProud was included; and, for the record, I am disappointed that those groups decided to boycott). If it unifies the conservative movement to revoke GOProud’s sponsorship, then I support doing so, until GOProud makes an effort be a unifying voice. Their outreach to Michele Bachmann is definitely a sign of progress, and, since I do not follow GOProud, they may have done more that I am unaware of.
I like to think that some social conservatives’ opposition to gay people is based on misunderstanding. Gay conservatives should be doing more to reach out to social conservatives, and less to alienate them. That is the responsibility of gay conservatives, not social conservatives.
Also, I have a question. If GOProud claims to be a non-partisan organization, why does their name include GOP?
Help me out here. I didn’t grajiat from a university, so I may not be as learnt as you are. It’s always been my understanding that “identity politics” was about a group pushing their own interests for their benefit. From what I’ve seen, GOProud pushes for the interests of ALL Americans and highlights how it’s beneficial for gays.
I’m not seeing how that’s “identity politics”. If they were only focused on issues that only benefited gays, I could see your point.
What you have here is two groups of people saying the exact same thing to each other: “Why can’t you drop your obsession with one specific social policy so we can all focus on something else?”
It’s an undocumented immigrant standoff.
“I like to think that some social conservatives’ opposition to gay people is based on misunderstanding.”
Naamloos, most social conservatives aren’t opposed to gay people, and I suspect that a minority aren’t even opposed to homosexuality per se. Rather, most of us socons are opposed to the gay agenda and the mainstreaming of homosexuality, and we’re opposed to the methods that are used to achieve those goals.
Contrary to what many liberal types believe, social conservatives aren’t really interested in what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms SO LONG AS IT STAYS IN THEIR BEDROOMS. But when people PUBLICIZE and POLITICIZE their bedrooms by demanding that EVERYONE approve of what they do there, we socons believe we have a moral right to say, “No.” And we don’t believe that saying no is intolerant, bigoted, or oppressive because we don’t view uninhibited sexual expression, especially by fringe sex groups, as the essence of freedom.
Naamloos, I believe that most social conservatives probably have gay people in their lives whom they like or even love. I know I do. However, most socons live by the principle of “values trump blood”, as Jewish conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager put it. That doesn’t make us monsters. Rather, we’re trying to be truly principled people by rejecting “fair weatherism” and adhering to our values and beliefs even when doing so causes conflict with family or friends.
Naamloos, I’m sure social conservatives have some misunderstandings of gays, but the reverse is also true. I agree with you that it’s the responsibility of gay conservatives to “…reach out to social conservatives and [not] alienate them”, but so long as (many) gay conservatives hold to the “approve of us or you’re a bigot” line, I don’t hold out much hope for detente.
The animus directed toward Chris and Jimmy is because they are gay, and predates Chris’s intemperate remarks–for which he apologized fully.
GOProud is not just being barred from sponsorship; it’s being barred from even having a booth. That is, it won’t be allowed to have any official presence at CPAC whatsoever.
CPAC is a private organization and it is free to do that. It was, however, uniquely positioned to continue its role as a clearinghouse of opinons from all three branches of conservatism–fiscal, social, and pro-defense. It chose to unbalance the step stool at a really bad time in American history.
Not all people who support this action are homophobes; some merely want CPAC to go back to its roots as a predominantly Christian event, in a very orthodox sense. I see the temptation, but it’s a mistake.
Seane-Anna, I am glad to hear that.
But then why was there such opposition to GOProud at CPAC?
Ann Coulter? Politically irrelevant. But then this unending sour grapes campaign against Obama is pretty irrelevant too. Just thought I’d point that out!
“Seane-Anna, I am glad to hear that.
But then why was there such opposition to GOProud at CPAC?”
My guess, Naamloos, is that the social conservatives at CPAC didn’t trust GOProud’s motives and objectives. That is, they didn’t trust GOProud not to try and “queer” conservatism and silence their voice in the movement. Their distrust, imo, was understandable considering that the most visible gay activists are the shrill, anti-Christian, anti-family, libertine, subversive, hard left denizens of “Gay, Inc.”. Apparently, GOProud didn’t do enough to distinguish itself from that crowd and, as others here have pointed out, Chris Barron’s remarks didn’t help. Result: opposition to and eventual banning of, GOProud.
Naamloos, the outreach you spoke of really does need to happen, but as long as GOProud and the rest of the gay Right is, or is perceived to be, just “Gay, Inc.” in a different guise then the distrust between them and social conservatives will continue.
Dan,
Would you finally admit defeat and realize that the social conservative base does NOT want gay people attending their events?
Maybe its time to get real, and I agree with Seane-Anna, gays CANNOT be conservative as being gay is in of itself an antithesis to conservative ideals. Now before you berate me, I find it quite disturbing that conservatives cannot accept gay people, but oh well, tough cookies, just don’t blame me the messenger for giving you the bad NEWS.
Maybe its time to quit all of this conservative mambo-jambo…
Would you finally admit defeat and realize that the social conservative base does NOT want gay people attending their events?
From the letter:
As always, GOProud members are welcome and encouraged to attend as individual registrants.
Yet another lie told by yet another of the jealous and spiteful plantation slaves who can’t and won’t break loose from the chains in which their Obama Party massas keep them.
We know what Obama Party members really think and say and what they do to gays and lesbians who dare disagree with them and don’t stay on the plantation. It is beyond belief that you could even come to a site like this that takes nothing but abuse from your so-called “tolerant” Obama Party massas, who attack and try to get fired any gay and lesbian person who disagrees with them and who attacks and tries to hurt their families, and make your whining statements.
Oh come on NDT, stop being a fool…
CPAC’s base is socially conservative… what are you smoking?
You think that social conservatives want to accept homosexuality? Homosexuality is evil to them and they do not want it “normalize” as per Seanne Anna.
Your projections are just mere entertainment to me, since anybody that questions the “patriots” is a an Obama (Barry Sortoro) lover…. Please… LOL… What a freak.
Says who?
So says social conservatives. Again, I’m only the messenger. I wish that gays were accepted in all corners but that is not the TRUTH. And it would be foolish to believe otherwise.
Personally, I don’t believe that a “gay” person, as that term is used these days, can really be a conservative either. I don’t see how it’s possible to conserve American values and traditions while simultaneously practicing sodomy even “in the privacy of the bedroom” or whatever. One of the things that our American moral and legal tradition teaches us is that sodomy is toxic to a moral society, no matter where or how it’s practiced.
That being said I applaud CPAC’s decision.
Here’s another answer your TGC:
#41: “Ann Coulter? Politically irrelevant. But then this unending sour grapes campaign against Obama is pretty irrelevant too.”
Yeah, Bigg, eight massive bestselling books including her latest one which is CURRENTLY on the NYT list and Coulter is “politically irrelevant.” What a dope. You really should consider reading Coulter’s new book, Demonic. It traces the historic development and characteristics of mobs and how modern liberals embody ALL of those characteristics, including the inability to grasp anything but the most simplistic ideas that can be reduced to chants and slogans. Your reference to an “unending sour grapes campaign against Obama” is a perfect example. You’re not intellectually capable of understanding the legitimate reasons for conservatives’ opposition to Obama’s policies, so you chalk it up to GOP “sour grapes” for losing the 2008 election.
Like I said, you really should read Demonic. Of course, it might be a little unsettling because in your case it would read like a biography, but you could still learn a great deal from it. However, I suspect you’re too closed-minded to handle it.
Agreed.
You clearly do not understand what “gay” means. According to you, “gay” is a synonym for “socialist” (since socialism is the antithesis of conservatism).
Oh good. So you can provide names and citations then. Don’t forget those who support GOProud and LCR.
I’ll wait.
By that measure, there are lots of folks who’re considered conservatives who really aren’t. Wouldn’t you say? When do you demand they get the boot from CPAC?
And just what is that “tradition” that teaches that “sodomy is toxic to a moral society”?
#36. Identity politics is simply looking at and addressing politics through the prism of what group you belong to, rather than just as Americans: the Congressional Black Caucus is for blacks, NAACP is for blacks, GLAAD is for gays, NOW is for ugly women, La Rasa is for illegal Mexican immigrants, etc, etc…
With the exception of GOProud and few others, we really dont DO that on the right. Our biggest groups are all-inclusive, the Tea Party, CPAC, NRA, etc, all of which include people from every race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation because as conservatives we dont believe in group rights, in fact we reject them, because we believe in individual rights.
Funny,
JS sites as ‘support’ a first time poster with a dead link for a URL.
Meanwhile he ignores CPAC’s own words and the evidence of people here (including Social Conservatives like myself).
Personally, I’m waiting for Paula Brooks to give us the defining lesbian stand on this.
Oh stop living under a rock. You really want me to cite ALL of the social conservatives that oppose homosexuals? I don’t think Dan would appreciate it if I took up that much bandwidth.
Your delusions have caused you to challenge the news I bring you. Again, I’m only the paper boy.
Ok, again, HOW do they do “that”? Their website says:
GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies.
Allies tells me that straights can be included. Do they prevent straights from joining? Is their advisory council all gay (and I didn’t know it)? Again, if they’re pushing things that benefit all Americans while highlighting how they benefit gays, which they routinely do based on my experience, is that necessarily “identity politics”? I think not based on my understanding of the meaning.
Ok. The liberals wouldn’t expend the time or energy to piss on you if you were on fire. I won’t waste blog space telling you who they are. Trust me. I’m just the messenger.
Do NOT doubt me.
#58 Further, the only questionable action I’ve heard of by GOProud concerning membership: I’m told they booted Sunshine Republicans for supporting Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist. I don’t know who was behind that or why, but it happened. It’s been resolved now, so whatever.
Well, sodomy was illegal (and punishable by death) in the original 13 colonies and was illegal in my own state until 2003 when a liberal activist Supreme Court decided that they knew better than the will of the people. The Bible (upon which our society and Constitution are based) teaches that sodomy must likewise be punishable by death lest it defile the land in which it is practiced.
Again, I don’t think it’s possible to refer to oneself as a “conservative” and likewise reject the wisdom of tradition regarding sodomy. You can be in favor of cut, cap and balance (which is great) and still be a sodomite who lives in violent opposition to both God and Nature (which isn’t great), but not a conservative. That title is reserved for people who wish to preserve God’s plan for the world.
So was working on Sunday or being a witch. For that matter, blasphemy was a serious crime. Hog theft was a pretty big one. Interracial marriage was a big no-no. In Virginia, it was a crime not to attend church at least once per month. I could go on.
Long story short, by your standards, there’s quite a few conservatives out there who wouldn’t meet your morality measuring stick. In fact, I’d wager that there would probably be very few who would meet your lofty standards. Then again, a moral person would recognize that nobody, including himself, is perfect.
And frankly, I don’t want to know how many conservatives have played the back 9 with their wives. However, I’d wager it’s quite a few.
America was a better place when most of those things were illegal, too. Or are you going to argue that the Founding Fathers were less moral and more mistaken than our Enlightened Modern Age?
The Bible (upon which our society and Constitution are based) teaches that sodomy must likewise be punishable by death lest it defile the land in which it is practiced.
So here’s where the rubber meets the road, Bob Hale; I want you to say specifically to my face that the state should put me to death.
Man up and put your money where your mouth is. In fact, I challenge you to state up front that you want me executed because I am gay and because I have sex with men. It is your strong and heartfelt belief that the United States government should put me to death.
This is where your kind really piss me off. I am a committed Christian. I pay my taxes. I go to church. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. As anyone here will tell you, I am the first to come down hellishly and hard on the typical gay activist, who I see as people who promote the worst possible behaviors and antireligious bigotry.
If you want me dead, it’s your prerogative to say so. But if you’re hiding behind God as an excuse for that, you’re dead wrong. Jesus came that all should live, not that sinners should die.
You are welcome to call for my death. You are welcome to try to raise laws to have gay people executed. That is your right in this society. But don’t you dare try to co-opt God as your excuse for it. Own up to your own motivations and your own desires, and leave Scripture out of it.
Mr. North Dallas Thirty, I believe that laws should be passed in accordance with Scripture, American and Christian tradition which call for the death penalty for unnatural sexual acts. If you continue to commit those acts knowing full well the legal consequences, then, yes, I would say that you would deserve the just punishment for your crimes. For the vast majority of American history (at least 150 years of it) this position would have been utterly uncontroversial and unquestioned. (Hence my bemusement at the thought of “gay conservatives”. Conservatives recognize the rightness of God’s merciful commandments for our lives, for one thing).
I cannot say weather or not you are a Christian, as that is only for God to decide. He has told us, however, in His word that His followers do not continue to live notoriously in sin (1 John 3:6-9). Christ did indeed come that all may live (John 3:16) but this is spiritual life, not necessarily physical life. The earthly civil punishments for sin still remain in effect (Romans 13:1).
If you truly do believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior and you are inclined to sodomy (I take it that you are?), then I encourage you to turn away from your sins and seek the fellowship of believers who will help you back on the path to wholeness. http://exodusinternational.org/
Another thought: I would consider Exodus International to be real “gay” conservatives, as they are made up of individual Christians who struggle with homosexuality yet recognize the need to be continually sanctified in Christ’s blood. That, my friend, is the beginning and end of conservatism. It’s great to be fiscally responsible but our constitution is utterly senseless without the shadow of Calvary cast over it.
And STILL TGC is DEMANDING that I list a conservative that opposes homosexuality. Well, is one that advocates for the death penalty of gays enough for you?
LOL.
Get off your high horse Bob Hale. If you would prefer to live in the 19th century, perhaps you would be happier living in Saudi Arabia. I mean, you are clearly unaware of the first amendment. And, I will say it is you who is not conservative. It is quite obvious you are a collectivist; someone who does not allow for dissent and does not believe in the individual. Also, if you are so opposed to gay people, maybe you could spare readers of this blog, many of whom are gay conservatives, your bullsh*t. I sincerely feel sorry for any incredibly insecure person who reads your comments and, as a result, feels the desire to “cure” their “lifestyle.”
Mr. North Dallas Thirty, I believe that laws should be passed in accordance with Scripture, American and Christian tradition which call for the death penalty for unnatural sexual acts. If you continue to commit those acts knowing full well the legal consequences, then, yes, I would say that you would deserve the just punishment for your crimes.
That isn’t what I asked, Bob Hale.
I want you to say specifically to my face that the state should put me to death. In fact, I challenge you to state up front that you want me executed because I am gay and because I have sex with men. It is your strong and heartfelt belief that the United States government should put me to death.
To put it in the vernacular you may best understand, pick up the stone and throw it.
And if you can’t do that, then you have failed in abiding by your own rules and have defiled the land, disobeying the laws of God.
Your choice. You murder me or you disobey God’s law.
Make it.
NDT, and I mean this very sincerely, Bravo.
All right then. I think you should be executed for the abominable crime for which you fully admit to committing right here on this blog. But I only think so because God thinks so.
Again, I’m not sure why you find these statements unusual or controversial. The death penalty for sodomy was the (almost) universal law of this land for at least the first 100 years of the Republic (with heavy prison sentences instituted for it afterwards). If you want to argue that I’m wrong for thinking this way, you’re going to have to argue with the Bible and the Founding Fathers.
Naamloos, you say it well. Mr. Hale is no conservative and I furthermore suspect his faith.
Also, if you had walked up to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and boldly proclaimed your sodomitical tendencies they would have performed a citizens arrest and sent you to the nearest magistrate for a hanging. They would have then gone home and slept like babies.
I’m saying this to underline the fundamental absurdity of your position, that it’s possible to be some kind of a Christian Conservative while still being at war with both God and His creation. Again, I’d like to recommend Exodus International and all of the good work that they do reconciling the sinner with Christ.
Are you you talking about George Washington, the slave owner? And Thomas Jefferson, the slave owner and womanizing adulterer? Them.
David, owning slaves has never been specifically prohibited by scripture and, indeed, the New Testament contains advice for slave owners to not mistreat their slaves. My own great-great-great grandparents owned three slaves and by all accounts treated them well. The evidence that Thomas Jefferson committed adultery with his slaves is scant and is usually promoted by radical black activists in an attempt to defame our Founding Fathers.
David in N.O., I agree. I have never seen a true Christian say such ridiculously absurd things as those said by Mr. Hale. I suspect he is a progressive commenting in the guise of a social conservative who is attempting to convince gay conservatives that social conservatives hate them, or to try to make all social conservatives seem irrational and bigoted. His comments reek of leftism.
Abortion is not specifically prohibited in the bible either.
All right then. I think you should be executed for the abominable crime for which you fully admit to committing right here on this blog. But I only think so because God thinks so.
Again, Bob Hale, to put it in the vernacular you may best understand, pick up the stone and throw it.
And if you can’t do that, then you have failed in abiding by your own rules and have defiled the land, disobeying the laws of God.
Your choice. You murder me or you disobey God’s law.
Make it. Don’t hide behind Scripture, don’t hide behind God, don’t hide behind the Founding Fathers.
Come on. Prove your Christianity by murdering someone. Prove how you follow God’s law by killing people.
After all, if you killed a gay person, you’d be a better Christian, right?
Also, Bob Hale, I would like to draw your attention to something.
Your statement:
Another thought: I would consider Exodus International to be real “gay” conservatives, as they are made up of individual Christians who struggle with homosexuality yet recognize the need to be continually sanctified in Christ’s blood. That, my friend, is the beginning and end of conservatism. It’s great to be fiscally responsible but our constitution is utterly senseless without the shadow of Calvary cast over it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with their viewpoint.
Many know that we have responded to the horrible and truly homophobic public policy being promoted in Uganda. Public policy that would harshly punish, imprison and possibly execute those who have same-sex attractions and/or identify as gay. Exodus International, in agreement with many other Christian and gay organizations, have pleaded with the government to show compassion, afford dignity and respect for those who identify as gay. We are absolutely opposed to the criminalization of homosexuality in any nation.
Exodus International calls on President & Mrs. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to lead their government into an era of treating all of their neighbors as they would like to be treated. It is abominable that a nation with Christian leadership would endorse or allow anyone to be brutally murdered. In the words of Jesus Himself, those who are without sin cast the first stone.
Now reconcile that worldview with your own endorsement, Bob Hale. By your own logic, you have just endorsed, supported, and praised an “unchristian” organization.
And if you are a leftist playing as a religious person, you just set off a live grenade in your own face — since it demonstrates that the very organization and people you seek to demonize are in fact opposed to that which you claim.
to echo David in NO, Bravo NDT (most sincerely) and once again, Miss Rita Beads is at the top of her game.
and to quote my favorite Ouiser Boudreaux, from Steel Magnolias
Mr Hale, you are nothing more than a boil on the butt of humanity.
A) I demanded nothing.
2) Can’t help but noticed that you haven’t. And is one all you have (if that)?
This is like the party of slavery, segregation and the Klan flailing about trying to prove that they’re not the racist bigots.
Mr. Thirty, I’m well aware that Exodus is against criminalizing sodomy in favor of voluntary Christ-centered healing for the homosexual. While I do understand their point of view, I think theirs is largely a political concession driven by current circumstances. As much as it pains me to say it, I think that as the “public face” of ex-gay healing, they are kind of forced to play with kid gloves when it comes to Scriptural teaching. I don’t agree with that, and neither would the Founding Fathers. But as you say, nobody is perfect.
And no, I’m not going to personally kill you. Again, Paul is quite clear in Romans that judicial executions and punishments are the realm of a lawful government instituted by God. When sodomy is once again made illegal, you will have all the legal and constitutional protections that all other criminals are afforded (should you continue in that lifestyle).
Again, if you are truly a Christian I would implore you in the name of Christ to reevaluate your life in a spirit of prayer and repentance and change course before it’s too late. Christ stands at the door and knocks, that you might be saved.
Mr. Thirty, I’m well aware that Exodus is against criminalizing sodomy in favor of voluntary Christ-centered healing for the homosexual.
Which is a lesson you frankly could stand to take to heart.
Which do you think mirrors Christ more — their way, or your desire that gays and lesbians be put to death?
Again, if you are truly a Christian I would implore you in the name of Christ to reevaluate your life in a spirit of prayer and repentance and change course before it’s too late.
I find Matthew 7:15 – 23 peculiarly appropriate and relevant to that statement.
Which do you think mirrors Christ more — their way, or your desire that gays and lesbians be put to death?
There is no contradiction between wanting to save the homosexual from their sins and wanting the due punishment for sins to be carried out. I want every murderer on death row to come to Christ before his execution. Better yet, I want every human on Earth to come to Christ so that they wont commit murder.
I find Matthew 7:15 – 23 peculiarly appropriate and relevant to that statement.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at by posting that scripture. I would argue that the ones bearing bad fruit and crying “Lord, Lord!” on judgment day won’t be the ones who argued forcefully for God’s natural order, but rather the “Christians” who lived unrepentantly in notorious sin and attempted to twist God’s Word to support their sinful and degrading lifestyles.
Once again, people, I do not support same-sex marriage. Fine. But I have to go with the Great Man himself, President Reagan. I’ll take the person or persons with us 80% plus of the time. Are you folks railing here not getting it? The Dear Leader, President Obama, is jamming the gay-left agenda. I do not see that here. And you know what? Just as bad is ruining the economy. Ruining our prestige in the world. Making us but a Bannana Republic. Oh and caving into a worse force than the people here and at GOProud. Islamofacists. Damnit, keep your eyes on the big picture. Oh yeah, I think GOProud should be at CPAC. And those that oppose should be there too.
You just answered your own question. GOProud represents GAY conservatives and their allies. Identity politics. Not “conservatives” but “Gay Conservatives and their allies”.
Nobody invites GOProud to appear on their show to discuss the debt ceiling, Obamacare, economics, border security, etc…They invite them on to talk about gay marriage, or DADT, or mostly, the controversy and division that including GOProud in CPAC has caused, because they are not viewed by the media or the public at large as a primarily conservative organization, but a primarily GAY organization.
Thats what happens when you engage in identity politics. And that is what has happened.
You just answered your own question. GOProud represents GAY conservatives and their allies. Identity politics. Not “conservatives” but “Gay Conservatives and their allies”.
Nobody invites GOProud to appear on their show to discuss the debt ceiling, Obamacare, economics, border security, etc…They invite them on to talk about gay marriage, or DADT, or mostly, the controversy and division that including GOProud in CPAC has caused, because they are not viewed by the media or the public at large as a primarily conservative organization, but a primarily GAY organization.
Thats what happens when you engage in identity politics. And that is what has happened.
Comment by Bob Hale
Paula? Is that you?
Ok, AE. Whatever creams your twinkie, dear.
There is no contradiction between wanting to save the homosexual from their sins and wanting the due punishment for sins to be carried out.
Oh really, Bob Hale?
I seem to recall a verse that states clearly, “The wages of sin is death”.
I also seem to recall you stating this above:
And believe me, I recognize that I am the chief of sinners, as the Apostle Paul would say
So get with the process of carrying out the “due punishment” – on yourself.
Add to that your willingness to allow Exodus to “pervert Scripture”, as you put it, by not calling for the execution of gay and lesbian people out of political necessity, and suddenly the warnings and descriptions of Matthew 23 come well into focus.
Advocacy is one thing. Preaching your worldview is one thing. But actively advocating for and demanding that temporal killing be committed in the name of God is so far beyond the pale of what both Jesus and Paul taught that it staggers the imagination.
Your problem is that you want to murder gays and lesbians. You then presume and dare to yell that God wants you to do it. You say “Lord, Lord”, and claim to be acting in God’s name, but all you bring is hatred, violence, and death.
We have seen your fruits, Bob Hale. None of them are of the Spirit. All of them are of death, violence, and destruction. You usurp the sole right of God to vengeance and punishment and claim it for yourself.
Not only that, but you are a coward, Bob Hale. You use God as an excuse. You use the Founding Fathers as an excuse. You are not man enough to stand up and state your beliefs, instead choosing to cower behind, twist, and pervert Scripture and our country’s founding documents as an excuse for your degraded morality.
And I would argue that you’re every bit as ignorant as the leftists we’ve been fighting against.
Reality “creams my twinkie” except I dont go for twinkies. But once again your hackles are up cus someone criticized the group you emotionally cling to. Like arguing with a lib every time.
You know, I’m almost starting to feel sorry for you guys. It seems that the very people who you wish to emulate most actually hate you more than you hate yourselves… And that’s just sad.
Bigg, you are making a sweeping generalization. You are a deeply intolerant and bigoted person if you do not think a gay person can be a conservative without hating themselves. And that’s just sad.
Ok, here’s the Christian thing.
The Bible clearly calls homosexual behavior a sin. In the Old Testament it was punishable by death, like many other sins. In the New Testament Jesus NEVER changed the definition of sin. He NEVER redefined as acceptable what God, in the Old Testament, called an abomination. This might be easier to understand when we realize that the “Old Testament” was the whole Bible in Jesus’ time. Jesus quoted from it repeatedly, clearly showing He accepted it as authoritative, as God’s Word.
Jesus never changed the definition of sin, but He did alter the temporal punishment for it. Jesus didn’t enact the physical death penalty for sin but, instead, focused on the spiritual death that occurs when you reject God and are enslaved to sin. To avoid this spiritual death, Jesus offered forgiveness of sin through Him and the opportunity to have His righteousness imputed to us so we can be righteous before a holy God and avoid spiritual death, i.e. be saved. And Jesus saves us FROM sin, not TO sin.
That, in a nutshell, is the Gospel view of homosexuality. No, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean He approved of it. Jesus never mentioned incest, either, but no one would conclude from that silence that Jesus condoned that abominable practice. Jesus was a devout Jew who put God’s will above all else, even His own life. Someone with that type of total devotion would take God’s commands seriously. Jesus did, and so must we, even if doing so is the toughest thing we’ve ever done.
Hope that helps.
So, Seane-Anna, one who engages in homosexual acts, and has no intention of stopping such “sin” has rejected Jesus and God, and as a bonus, is spritually dead. Also, homosexuality was and should have been punishable by death, but Jesus changed his Father’s mind, and reduced the penalty to spiritual death. Is that right?
Why are some of the Gay Patriot regulars so surprised and incensed at Bob Hale’s support of the death penalty for homosexuals? He’s simply one of the few authoritarian fundamentalist religious fanatics who are courageous and honest enough to publicly admit that they would support a final solution to the homosexual question – but, of course, they only support it because it’s mandated by their ancient holy book. Holy books are just so darn convenient.
Today’s Republican party woos, courts, welcomes, embraces, and covets the millions of people who believe like Hale, but who may, or may not, have the guts to come out of the closet on the extent of their true beliefs regarding the homosexual question. If anyone believes that such human inclinations ended in 1945, they are delusional. But those inclinations became so socially unacceptable that even the true believers were forced to keep it under wraps.
As recently as 2003, a mainstream conservative position was to still support the criminalization of homosexuals – judging by the flood of amicus briefs to SCOTUS during the run-up to the Lawrence v. Texas decision. But now that seems to be regarded as a more extreme position, so I guess that represents some progress.
I’m really not too worried, though. Barring some major social upheaval, people like Bob Hale will continue on their path toward becoming irrelevant dead-enders drooling in a nursing home muttering, “what the hell happened?”.
I’d been skipping most of this thread as the fluff got going, and when I saw that it got to 99 comments, I thought “Oh, dear.” But then I read NDT’s comments, and it was worth it.
Because dumbass, we believe in individual rights to life, liberty and property. For real. Not as a posture (as leftists often adopt).
Thank you, Seane-Anna.
I do think that you can be conservative and gay without hating yourself – I just don’t believe you can mindlessly parrot the words of those who hate you & look up to them with this level of blind adoration without hating yourself. Big difference!
The funny part is, Richard Rush, that gay and lesbian liberals like yourself have also called for the death and execution of conservative gays and lesbians and their families.
So you’re nothing more than a hypocrite, given that you and your fellow gay and lesbian liberals want the same thing Bob Hale does — the death of gay people you don’t like and their families.
But Bigg, as we’ve seen, gay and lesbian liberals like yourself hate and call for the death of gay conservatives and their families — and then expect us to “mindlessly parrot” their words.
You’re no different than Bob Hale.
Bigg, when you said,
who exactly were you referring to? Given the context, “you guys” sounds like it refers to gay conservatives in general. If that is the case, then your comment #102 contradicts your previous comment.