GOProud at CPAC creates controversy, calls for boycotts

posted at 1:30 pm on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Conservative Political Action Conference is the pinnacle of events for conservative activists.  Held annually in Washington DC in the winter, it aggregates hundreds of conservative activist groups and thousands of attendees, and attracts high-profile figures on the Right, including national and regional politicians hoping to tap CPAC’s energy.  Not all of these groups agree with each other on all issues, and sometimes the close quarters results in some entertaining debates (and sometimes just silly displays, such as the porpoise that followed Mitt Romney throughout the Omni in 2007).  But the inclusion of a conservative coalition of gays, GOProud, has created calls for the ACU and CPAC to cut off GOProud’s sponsorship and attendance at CPAC as well as a few rumblings of a boycott among social conservatives.

This is justified in e-mails circulating among conservatives based on allegations that GOProud is a crypto-Leftist group seeking to infiltrate and weaken conservative policies.  However, that doesn’t match up with the group’s stated legislative priorities, which do not go any further than most of the conservative and libertarian groups that regularly attend and sponsor the conference.  I’ll post their list in its entirety:

1 – TAX REFORM – Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM – Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

Social conservatives will have a problem with numbers 4 and possibly 7, although the latter relates to a Constitutional amendment making marriage a federal issue, which conservatives should be wary of doing anyway.  Otherwise, their platform could be just as easily adopted at a Tea Party as at GOProud, and would receive rousing support from the floor at CPAC coming from any other entity.  It’s not a far-Left or crypto-Left agenda at all, but a good, solid recitation of conservative principles and fiscal responsibility.

In other words, we have at least an 80% agreement on the major issues facing our country between mainstream conservatives and this sponsor of CPAC.  That seems like a pretty good fit.  I asked Lisa De Pasquale, the director of CPAC, for a response to the controversy:

CPAC is a coalition of nearly 100 conservative groups, some of which may disagree with one another on a handful of issues.  But, at the end of the day, we all agree on core conservative principles.  As you may know, GOProud was founded by a former member of the Log Cabin Republicans who left the group because he thought they were doing a disservice to their constituency by not adhering to conservative and Republican principles.  GOProud’s website states “GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.”

After talking with their leadership and reviewing their website, I am satisfied that they do not represent a “radical leftist agenda,” as some have stated, and should not be rejected as a CPAC cosponsor.

This seems like a wise decision, and this controversy challenges conservatives as to whether they’re interested in a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.  If we want to win control of the House in 2010, we need to focus on key principles that address the nation’s crises and the main points of disillusion with Democrats.  That should set our focus on those points on which Democrats overreached — namely, spending, government intrusion, spiraling deficits, and fiscal insanity.  We need to show that we can, if trusted with power again, govern properly and responsibly, and even more that we understand that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.  We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

Update: I misspelled Lisa’s name; I’ve corrected it above. My apologies.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

Let’s take a look at how they incorporated that into their structure of government, hmmmm?
voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Okay. How’s this?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Again, it’s not a private writing. But, it appears to be pretty mindful of The Creator.

kingsjester on December 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM

LOL Keep trying . . . keeeeep trying . . . we know you can do it!

LOL Clown.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM

TL;DR. Another Religious Right loony fails to comprehend the meaning of “structure of government.”

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Oh, please “educate” me on the meaning of “structure of government” oh Latin Lefty. Teach me from the lofts of yer high lernin’ store so’s I kin be a geenus liken you.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM

selective outrage and arbitrary morality

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Thats your claim.

Whats your supporting evidence?

Itchee Dryback

hmm that would be every other participant at the convention tolerating everyone else…

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM

hmm apparently you can’t say t*ts here

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM

What? They’ve posted topless video…

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Care to name a society that has had its downfall result from embracing homosexuality?

Please make sure you understand the meaning of the phrase “result from”?

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:46 PM

. . . No, I can’t.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Fix’ed

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Great minds and all.

Another not so “private writing” was the first Thanksgiving Proclaimation by Washington which decreed the day “to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”

In fact the President of the United States said:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Ohhhhh! Another miss!

I know this concept of “structure of government” will not elude you forever! Work those 3 synapses of yours overtime! LOL

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Point it out to me.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Why? If you knew the structure of a straw man argument then you would know when you waged one. If you don’t then you don’t.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM

money

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Ohhhhh! Another miss!

I know this concept of “structure of government” will not elude you forever! Work those 3 synapses of yours overtime! LOL

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Why don’t you dazzle us all with your in depth knowledge of the concept of “structure of government” instead of posting immature and pointless comments?

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Why? If you knew the structure of a straw man argument then you would know when you waged one. If you don’t then you don’t.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM

If you can’t answer the question…which is what in that argument constitues what you view as a straw man…then you can’t. We all get it.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Fix’ed

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM

No, you erased the information and gave a false answer.

BTW explain what you think “structure of government” means, since quotes referring to respect for religion as essential for officeholders have been provided you. Are you saying a government without a Supreme Council of Ayatollahs must be hostile to crusading preachers?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Oh, please “educate” me on the meaning of “structure of government”
ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM

LOL Endgame.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM

The structure of government is LOL Endgame? Sounds Messianic.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 3:55 PM

BTW explain what you think “structure of government” means,
Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Batting 1.000 here folks. They really do speak their own langauge, don’t they? LOL

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:55 PM

If you can’t answer the question…which is what in that argument constitues what you view as a straw man…then you can’t. We all get it.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Engrish is my sekund langwich.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Where’s kingsjester?

Hello? Kingster?

Kingie-poo?

. . . Well, when you get back, I really, really want you to ask me what “structure of government” means, OK? perfect end to a perfect day.

TIA.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 4:02 PM

BTW explain what you think “structure of government” means,
Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Batting 1.000 here folks. They really do speak their own langauge, don’t they? LOL

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Oh yeah? Well it so happens that the first government of “the United States of America” met in Philadelphia in a pre-existing Liberty Hall!! So the Founders did NOT erect a structure of government!!! Bwahahaa! Bwhahahahaaa!! PWND!!!

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 4:10 PM

The structure of government is LOL Endgame? Sounds Messianic.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 3:55 PM

No “Endgame” is Vox talk for “Vox is a mental midget who’s been pwned.” He has allll the answers, but he’s not going to tell YOU what they are. My kids outgrew that game at 4.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM

What “rights” do a hetro person have that a homo person doesn’t?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I didn’t say they did. I was responding to the idea that keeps getting bandied about that protecting the moral fabric of society is the government’s job. It is not.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM

I don’t like federal intrusion, but the Feds have a vested interest in social stability by rewarding heterosexual behavior.

Badger40 on December 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

They do not. The federal government’s responsibility lies in protecting the rights of individual American citizens by keeping them free from coercion, foreign and domestic.

Protecting the moral fabric of society is not in their job description.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I didn’t say they did. I was responding to the idea that keeps getting bandied about that protecting the moral fabric of society is the government’s job. It is not.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM

It’s not government’s job to aid in the destruction of the moral fabric either.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM

hmm that would be every other participant at the convention tolerating everyone else…

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM

That makes absolutely no sense, but thanks.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM

What “rights” do a hetro person have that a homo person doesn’t?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Forget rights. Let’s talk opportunity, comparatively between gays and straights.

Does a gay man or woman have the same opportunity to marry someone with whom they are in love and to whom they sexually attracted? Does a gay man or woman have the same opportunity to consummate a loving marriage?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Point it out to me.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Why? If you knew the structure of a straw man argument then you would know when you waged one. If you don’t then you don’t.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Why? To help you make your point or to show you your weakness.

My claim was that gays are hung up on the word marriage. Whats the strawman?
They are hung up on the word. Its been suggested, and supported that the system be changed so “everybody get civil unions”…but civil unions are not good enough for just gays.
Let me repeat..why are gays so hung up on a word.

But I understand your desire to flee the point.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM

My claim was that gays are hung up on the word marriage. Whats the strawman?

Lying by omission is still lying. Ignore your own words. That’s a brilliant approach to proving yourself correct.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:33 PM

What do you mean by “governments involvement”?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM

I mean that the state will no longer participate in the joining of two people in holy matrimony.

For legal purposes you and your spouse will get a civil union with all the benefits and processes the state currently affords marriage.

Then have your religious marriage ceremony (or not) in the house of worship you choose, at the discretion of said church. Marriage would be totally the realm of individual churches with no interference from the gov in forcing the marriage of gays.

As far as divorce goes, it would be settled in court as would a contract dispute.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM

What do you mean by “governments involvement”?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM

I mean that the state will no longer participate in the joining of two people in holy matrimony.

For legal purposes you and your spouse will get a civil union with all the benefits and processes the state currently affords marriage.

Then have your religious marriage ceremony (or not) in the house of worship you choose, at the discretion of said church. Marriage would be totally the realm of individual churches with no interference from the gov in forcing the marriage of gays.

As far as divorce goes, it would be settled in court as would a contract dispute.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Does a gay man or woman have the same opportunity to marry someone with whom they are in love and to whom they sexually attracted? Does a gay man or woman have the same opportunity to consummate a loving marriage?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Yes. They can marry someone of the opposite sex as usual.

There’s no proof for the theory that homosexual behavior is based in biology. So far, the only difference we can show between a gay man living a lie with a wife and kid, and a bisexual swinger, is conscious behavior,and attitude about behavior.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Forget rights. Let’s talk opportunity, comparatively between gays and straights.

Does a gay man or woman have the same opportunity to marry someone with whom they are in love and to whom they sexually attracted? Does a gay man or woman have the same opportunity to consummate a loving marriage?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM

I agree, lets all put the silly angle of “rights” being violated away once and for all. Its a lame avenue.

Yes the opportunities are the same, though I suspect you will make thinner and thinner analogies as you go on.

A straight woman who loves another straight woman can not marry each other regardless of the degree of love for each.

One can’t consummate a marriage that doesn’t exist.

Is a couple who marries and does not “consummate” a marriage still married?

Why are gays hung up on sex and words?? Life has more meaning than that.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM

It’s not government’s job to aid in the destruction of the moral fabric either.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Does gay marriage physically harm you or your property? Are any of your constitutional rights hampered by it? No?

Then it is not the business of any branch of the federal government to be involved in any way.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Yes.

They can marry someone of the opposite sex as usual.

There’s no proof for the theory that homosexual behavior is based in biology. So far, the only difference we can show between a gay man living a lie with a wife and kid, and a bisexual swinger, is conscious behavior,and attitude about behavior.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 4:38 PM

You choose to completely ignore the important details of my statement. Your citations are as selective as your morality.

Could you get married “as usual” to a man? Next.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM

I agree, lets all put the silly angle of “rights” being violated away once and for all. Its a lame avenue.

Yes let’s . Marriage is not a right for anyone. The gov has no grounds for interference in marriage.

If it is such a transcendent religious sacrament, the government especially has no business involving itself in any way.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM

I mean that the state will no longer participate in the joining of two people in holy matrimony.

For legal purposes you and your spouse will get a civil union with all the benefits and processes the state currently affords marriage.

Then have your religious marriage ceremony (or not) in the house of worship you choose, at the discretion of said church. Marriage would be totally the realm of individual churches with no interference from the gov in forcing the marriage of gays.

As far as divorce goes, it would be settled in court as would a contract dispute.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Why bother with all that? Work to get gays comprehensive legal protections through civil unions, and get on with yer frickin lives already.
Why so hung up on the word?

Your plan makes no practical sense for more than one reason.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Parsing your words now will not pare back the ugliness with which you have expressed them.

Again, do gays have the same opportunity to marry someone they love romantically? Just say so if you believe that they don’t deserve that opportunity.

But you’re telling me that they don’t have that chance because they don’t get that chance. You’ve matriculated from straw man to circular reasoning.

Congrats.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:48 PM

You choose to completely ignore the important details of my statement. Your citations are as selective as your morality.

Could you get married “as usual” to a man? Next.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Oh no. I got the IMPORTANT details. I cut out the parts about sexual attraction and consummation, because those are legally insignificant, and psychological not biological.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Upon what grounds do you justify disallowing gays to marry their same-sex partners? What is your reasoning? Lay out your best case.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Does gay marriage physically harm you or your property? Are any of your constitutional rights hampered by it? No?

Then it is not the business of any branch of the federal government to be involved in any way.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Actually, yes the redefinition of marriage does hamper my constitutional rights to freedom of religion. My faith teaches that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. If the government legitimizes homosexuality by equating same sex coupling to hetersexual coupling, then my right to teach my children my religious beliefs that will be undermined by governmentally sanctioned constructs.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM

I cut out the parts about sexual attraction and consummation, because those are legally insignificant, and psychological not biological.

They are not insignificant to married couples though…are they?

Is there an opportunity for a gay man or woman to marry his or her romantic partner?
No.

Do you care at all that gays enjoy an abridged range of opportunities than you based on nothing more than their sexual orientation?
No.

Are you a bigot?
The question answers itself.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Your plan makes no practical sense for more than one reason.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM

It does though. It assuages the fear of churches that they’ll be forced to marry gays under the equal protection clause and hate crimes legislation.

If marriage is only a religious ceremony with no state sanction, the gov cannot interfere.

I don’t give a flip about the word, but the people claiming it to be some blessed gift from God not to be sullied by homos do.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Yes let’s . Marriage is not a right for anyone. The gov has no grounds for interference in marriage.

If it is such a transcendent religious sacrament, the government especially has no business involving itself in any way.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM

We agree. It is a privilege and not a human right. Privileges have guidelines. One of the guidelines is that to be married you have to have one man and one woman. Its not that complicated.

Marriage has government involvement because of the legal ramifications of two people meshing their lives.

Marriage is also has religious significance to many people.

The present complaint of gays has to do with the legalities. If you want government out, you want protections out.

Civil Unions is a new entity for a new time. Accept it and work toward it.
You or any other special interest group has no right to change this fact, just because you want to feel married. It reminds me of a South Park episode.

Why does this not seem like the most achievable way to the goal?…if the goal actually is legal protections.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM

It does though. It assuages the fear of churches that they’ll be forced to marry gays under the equal protection clause and hate crimes legislation.

If marriage is only a religious ceremony with no state sanction, the gov cannot interfere.

I don’t give a flip about the word, but the people claiming it to be some blessed gift from God not to be sullied by homos do.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Whats your point? The same thing could be more easily arrived at by civil unions. What don’t you understand about this?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM

We agree. It is a privilege and not a human right. Privileges have guidelines. One of the guidelines is that to be married you have to have one man and one woman. Its not that complicated.

Marriage has government involvement because of the legal ramifications of two people meshing their lives.

Marriage is also has religious significance to many people.

The present complaint of gays has to do with the legalities. If you want government out, you want protections out.

Civil Unions is a new entity for a new time. Accept it and work toward it.
You or any other special interest group has no right to change this fact, just because you want to feel married. It reminds me of a South Park episode.

Why does this not seem like the most achievable way to the goal?…if the goal actually is legal protections.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Exactly. If a gay couple truly wants legal protection then they would push for civil unions, which most people have no issue with. Again, it’s all about forcing society to embrace their lifestyle and make them feel “normal”. Tolerance is not enough….it’s acceptance and embracing or nothing it appears.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Actually, yes the redefinition of marriage does hamper my constitutional rights to freedom of religion. My faith teaches that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. If the government legitimizes homosexuality by equating same sex coupling to hetersexual coupling, then my right to teach my children my religious beliefs that will be undermined by governmentally sanctioned constructs.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM

The same idea could be applied to, gambling, strippers, alcohol, porn shops, gun stores, any number of things that are legal but the religious frown on.

Does the government’s sanctioning of highways and technology hamper the Amish’s religious expression to teach their children that the English’s ways are wrong.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Do you care at all that gays enjoy an abridged range of opportunities than you based on nothing more than their sexual orientation?
No.

Are you a bigot?
The question answers itself.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM

What are those things? Are they kept from loving one another? are they kept from socializing?..voting?..buying property?..taking vacations?..starting businesses?..What??

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:14 PM

We agree. It is a privilege and not a human right. Privileges have guidelines. One of the guidelines is that to be married you have to have one man and one woman. Its not that complicated.

No we don’t. It’s not a privilege or a right. Do you get funeral license or a bar mitzvah license?

If it’s such a deep religious ceremony the government shouldn’t be involved. If it’s not, the government has no business protecting your feelings from the scary gay people.

If your going to use that argument then the Feds are interfering in the FLDS’s rights to religious expression by outlawing polygamy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Does gay marriage physically harm you or your property? Are any of your constitutional rights hampered by it? No?

Then it is not the business of any branch of the federal government to be involved in any way.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Strawman.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM

You or any other special interest group has no right to change this fact, just because you want to feel married.

I’m also neither gay nor a deity worshiper, so I have no dog in this fight; and I’m already married thanks.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Upon what grounds do you justify disallowing gays to marry their same-sex partners? What is your reasoning? Lay out your best case.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Why would we alter the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Strawman.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Batman.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Does gay marriage physically harm you or your property? Are any of your constitutional rights hampered by it? No?

Actually, our constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government is under assault by a judiciary that law based on what they feel the Constitution OUGHT to say.

And in CA, the official marriage license was amended to say Partner 1 and Partner 2 instead of Husband and Wife, and anybody who crossed that out and wrote Husband and Wife had the license declared invalid.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM

The same idea could be applied to, gambling, strippers, alcohol, porn shops, gun stores, any number of things that are legal but the religious frown on.

Does the government’s sanctioning of highways and technology hamper the Amish’s religious expression to teach their children that the English’s ways are wrong.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM

That is a silly analogy. But I would love for you to explain your comment about the Amish. I understood them to be Christians.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Why would we alter the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Why wouldn’t we? It’s just a word right? That’s what all the religionists keep saying.

Why are you so hung up on the word?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM

No we don’t. It’s not a privilege or a right. Do you get funeral license or a bar mitzvah license?

If it’s such a deep religious ceremony the government shouldn’t be involved. If it’s not, the government has no business protecting your feelings from the scary gay people.

If your going to use that argument then the Feds are interfering in the FLDS’s rights to religious expression by outlawing polygamy.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Your arguments are getting far flung imo.

I disagree. Its not back or white.
Marriage has both the government involved for legal protections and the church for the religious. Its not either/or.

If your going to use that argument then the Feds are interfering in the FLDS’s rights to religious expression by outlawing polygamy.

How so?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM

That is a silly analogy. But I would love for you to explain your comment about the Amish. I understood them to be Christians.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Yes, Christians who refer to all outsiders as the English and shun their scary magical ways.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM

How so?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM

In sects of Fundamentalist Mormonism polygamy is considered the only way for a man to receive the highest level of salvation.

So to them, the Feds aren’t just interfering in the right to religious expression, they’re actively trying to stop them from fully communing with God.

Why is your argument any more relevant than theirs?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Yes, Christians who refer to all outsiders as the English and shun their scary magical ways.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM

So, has the government interfered in any way with those beliefs? Has the government redefined the meaning of horse to include cars, so now Amish children must be taught and accept that there is no difference between a horse and a car? Because redefining marriage to include same sex couples means that children will be taught that there is no difference in same sex and opposite sex couples and people who do not beleive that construct and say so out loud, will be persecuted.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Batman.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM

I think it is a strawman because it sets up a silly analogy imo.

Using meat of your analogy,
How does a man who beats his dog harm you or your rights? How does a pedophile?..etc.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM

In sects of Fundamentalist Mormonism polygamy is considered the only way for a man to receive the highest level of salvation.

So to them, the Feds aren’t just interfering in the right to religious expression, they’re actively trying to stop them from fully communing with God.

Why is your argument any more relevant than theirs?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Mormons abolished polygamy in 1890, so those “sects” are just that. But I concur that if the refusal to redefine marriage for same sex unions is a human rights violation, then it is a human rights violation to not redefine marriage for all variations of coupling.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Both types of crimes you mentioned cause enough harm that they are often classified as felonies.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM

For whom is gay-marriage dangerous? Or any more dangerous than a straight marriage?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM

How does a man who beats his dog harm you or your rights? How does a pedophile?..etc.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM

A pedophile? Seriously? How does a pedophile harm someone’s rights? I have to illustrate that?

Well, by sexually coercing a child, or trafficking in visual evidence of someone who has committed said crime.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM

For whom is gay-marriage dangerous? Or any more dangerous than a straight marriage?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Society as a whole. If you want names, get a phone book.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM

What are those things? Are they kept from loving one another? are they kept from socializing?..voting?..buying property?..taking vacations?..starting businesses?..What??

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Effing idiot.

How about the opportunity to marry their romantic partner?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Society as a whole. If you want names, get a phone book.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM

You just mentioned two crimes, dog-beating and pedophilia. You presented those crimes as comparisons. Both crimes cause harm to their victims.

How is gay marriage remotely similar? Whom is victimized by gay marriage? How? Be specific instead of regurgitating the same useless pablum you’ve been coughing up.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM

You just mentioned two crimes, dog-beating and pedophilia. You presented those crimes as comparisons. Both crimes cause harm to their victims.

How is gay marriage remotely similar? Whom is victimized by gay marriage? How? Be specific instead of regurgitating the same useless pablum you’ve been coughing up.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM

No I didn’t.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM

In sects of Fundamentalist Mormonism polygamy is considered the only way for a man to receive the highest level of salvation.

So to them, the Feds aren’t just interfering in the right to religious expression, they’re actively trying to stop them from fully communing with God.

Why is your argument any more relevant than theirs?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM

What do the mainstream Mormons think of it?

As societies and religions evolve, certain “sects” will fade out. Doesn’t seem to be a problem for the religion in question..Mormons.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Why would we alter the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman?

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM

That’s your response — to answer my queries with a question? You have no substantive reasoning with which to support your emotional feelings. This is obvious.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM

How about the opportunity to marry their romantic partner?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Civil Unions are legal in many states. Gay “marriage” is legal in many states. Where is the lost opportunity to “marry their romantic partner”? You’ve never attended a gay wedding? What are those figments of the imagination?

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM

“The founding fathers were definitely liberal. They were overthrowing the existing power-structure, overturning centuries of legal and social tradition, pushing hard to expand the liberties available to all men, and they did all this through violent revolution and social contracts – Sounds fairly liberal in any classical sense of the word.”

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM

I must agree that the US was founded on liberal values, and the true conservatives of that time were the imperial Loyalists. Even the names “republicans” and “democrats” reek of liberalism.

“Claissical Liberalism is modern Conservativism. Both are centered around the indiviual over the collective.”

Daemonocracy on December 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM

That is why it is NOT conservatism but old style liberalism in various petrified forms. To-day’s “conservatives” are simply liberals who at some point in the constant progress of liberalism said “stop” since they are in love with the liberalism of their particular era. The exact same happened during the French revolution. Since liberalism is ever continuing to progress there is an almost infinite number of political positions along this line and thus it will be impossible to have a unified and coherent republican party. To-day it is “gay rights” to-morrow it will be something else and most “conservatives” of let’s say 2020 will call to-day’s most progressive liberals hoplessly backwards.

I believe the answer to be to reject the american revolution entirely and all it stands for of ever progressive liberalism. The answer is in Rerum novarum and Quadragesimo annos: No to capitalism and no to socialism and yes to widespread non-transferable property-holding and to family owned businesses according to the writings of Pesch, Chesterton and Belloc.

JC Silverberg on December 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM


They all look alike…

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM

JC Silverberg on December 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Good luck with that.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM

They all look alike…

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Where’s the lost opportunity?

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Where’s the lost opportunity?

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM

This has been addressed. Thank you for pot smoking.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Effing idiot.

How about the opportunity to marry their romantic partner?

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Oh My! Are we getting testy? Need a nap?
Hey Mr. Cranky McCrankypants.
I was asking about this:

an abridged range of opportunities

You named 1 thing.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM

This has been addressed. Thank you for pot smoking.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Just trying to match brain cells with you.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Both types of crimes you mentioned cause enough harm that they are often classified as felonies.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Again..you missed the point.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Just trying to match brain cells with you.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Hey!!! You made a funny! Nice.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Again..you missed the point.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Not hard to do when dealing with a dullard like you.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM

To-day it is “gay rights” to-morrow it will be something else and most “conservatives” of let’s say 2020 will call to-day’s most progressive liberals hoplessly backwards.

I believe the answer to be to reject the american revolution entirely and all it stands for of ever progressive liberalism. The answer is in Rerum novarum and Quadragesimo annos: No to capitalism and no to socialism and yes to widespread non-transferable property-holding and to family owned businesses according to the writings of Pesch, Chesterton and Belloc.

JC Silverberg on December 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM

You need to get out more.
Just tryin to help.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM

Not hard to do when dealing with a dullard like you.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Awww now. Aren’t you even curious?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Not hard to do when dealing with a dullard like you.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Awww now. Aren’t you even curious?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Bi-curious. You’re both suckas!

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM

You need to get out more.
Just tryin to help.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM

I am “out more”. Right now I am on vacation in sunny Perú. been sitting on the beach drinking pisco sour.

JC Silverberg on December 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM

That’s your response — to answer my queries with a question? You have no substantive reasoning with which to support your emotional feelings. This is obvious.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Not to answer for CB, but you have it backwards. There is no substantive reasoning behind the idea that the whole of the concept of marriage should be changed in order to assuaged the feelings of about 1% of the population.

Break down the cost/benefit ratio. It might help your argument. What would the effects on the populace be, and what would the benefits be?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Are you justifying discrimination based on the numbers of those discriminated against? So much for the concept of defending minority rights against whims of the majority.

You are not a great American.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM

I am “out more”. Right now I am on vacation in sunny Perú. been sitting on the beach drinking pisco sour.

JC Silverberg on December 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Maybe your stuck in your head and thought patterns? No offense, but that shtick you laid out was strictly from fantasyland.

Read it again later. Abstract philosophy and deep thought usually have little to do with the way reality actually manifests itself. Maybe in a little village on a beach far removed from actual importance to the world at large, one could Colonel Kurtz it. But seriously…..its a fantasy.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Are you justifying discrimination based on the numbers of those discriminated against? So much for the concept of defending minority rights against whims of the majority.

You are not a great American.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM

Where there is no discrimination, justification is not needed. Take off those prisms you use to see what is going on in reality and you might understand that.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Are you justifying discrimination based on the numbers of those discriminated against? So much for the concept of defending minority rights against whims of the majority.

You are not a great American.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM

No. I’m claiming that society determines its standards and if 5 Mormons and 7 Woodstock hippies want to wing it…fine..just don’t try to force it to be recognized by society as a valid and legal position, just because you cry “Discrimination”!

Laws are not “whims”..thought what you suggest is quite whimsical imo.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:24 PM

In your case, the smaller the number the greater abandon with which you disregard their equality.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Race Card

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM

In your case, the smaller the number the greater abandon with which you disregard their equality.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Does it help you to invent false arguments to do battle with? I have yet to see a single solitary post that denied the equality of any individual, gay or straight. You are seeing what you want to see to fulfill some sort of inferiority issue YOU have. Any bigoty boogiemen you see are clearly a figment of your imagination.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Take 2!

Race Card

Yes ID has it, you merely have emotions to throw at me. You WANT romantic love to matter and have legal weight. It doesn’t. You WANT me to FEEL that homosexual attraction is biologically as necessary and inevitable as male-female attraction. I know there’s no proof of that, it can be described just as well as psychological in nature. You WANT me to think I’m a bigot, when you can’t demonstrate a meaningful reason why a behavioral trait should be sacred. You then want me to imagine I’m a bad American…when most Americans since the founding considered homosexuality to be a crime.

I’m sure you have more declarative statements.

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Say my name!

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:42 PM

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 4:02 PM

You’re drunk, aren’t you?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:42 PM

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM

You are seeing what you want to see to fulfill some sort of inferiority issue YOU have.

I’m pretty sure that feeling inferior is not his problem.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Buh bye. Wear your badge proudly. The burden you’ve been made carry, having to subject yourself to the run of the mill human, must be unbearable. I pity you. Why?..WHY? is life so cruel??
Hey!..heres an idea..why don’t you carry a mirror around with you so you can look into it every time you want to have a conversation with someone intelligent?
Just tryin’ to help.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM

I am absolutely stunned by your graceful knowledge on all subjects. You are so intelligent and civil. Your civility and hospitality blow me away. I actually pity you, thinking you are sooo intelligent because you have figured out the secret behind gay people: that they want to destroy society. 2012 is coming fast and all the gays will cause God to smite us!

Go preach your idiotic, xenophobic garbage somewhere else. Do you even know what the word “xenophobic” means? When you learn to accept everyone for who they are and not what you want them to be, then we can have an “intelligent” conversation you half-brained dimwit.

gopftw on December 17, 2009 at 6:45 PM

You WANT me to think I’m a bigot, when you can’t demonstrate a meaningful reason why a behavioral trait should be sacred.

Effing liar. I never called you a bigot. I wasn’t even talking to you.

Say something bigoted and I won’t hold back though.

I presume that paragraph you wrote indicates you do wish to be heard. Stop lying if you care to be taken seriously.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:46 PM

In your case, the smaller the number the greater abandon with which you disregard their equality.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM

No not at all.
If 8 Southern Militia members refuse to pay their taxes because they claim its discriminatory, do you feel that they are correct?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 6:46 PM

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:46 PM

He said you want him to “feel like” one.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:47 PM

I’m pretty sure that feeling inferior is not his problem.

The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 6:43 PM

At least you didn’t deny it as it relates to you

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 6:47 PM

I cut out the parts about sexual attraction and consummation, because those are legally insignificant, and psychological not biological.

They are not insignificant to married couples though…are they?

Is there an opportunity for a gay man or woman to marry his or her romantic partner?
No.

Do you care at all that gays enjoy an abridged range of opportunities than you based on nothing more than their sexual orientation?
No.

Are you a bigot?
The question answers itself.
The Race Card on December 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM

been a busy afternoon I know

Chris_Balsz on December 17, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7