Video: CPAC boos speaker for condemning invite to gay conservative group

posted at 6:05 pm on February 19, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, a clip that’s not as surprising as it may at first seem. The One’s agenda has vaulted fiscal conservatism to the top of the list of right-wing priorities; with even Darth Cheney sanguine about gay marriage, social issues simply don’t have the same bite that they used to. In fact, I’m curious to know if Ed’s gotten the same vibe at the convention that Time magazine’s getting — namely, thanks to the GOP’s tilt towards libertarianism, that the big tent is a little bigger this year than it used to be.

While I was flipping through the autobiography, a woman approached the booth. Catherine Sumner, it turned out, was part of GOProud, a group of openly gay Republicans and conservatives that for the first time is taking part in CPAC. “Is this your flyer?” Sumner demanded, waving the white and green pamphlet. Thus launched a debate about gays in the military that pretty much ended when the booth attendee told her that homosexuality is a sin and she’s going to hell.

“It’s insulting,” Sumner, 31, who edits a military magazine, said turning away. “Across the board the reaction to GOProud’s presence here has been positive, but then you have guys like this. Even Dick Cheney came out and says he supports us. Conservatives have to be more inclusive, they have to be.” In fact, just one group, Liberty University, boycotted CPAC over the inclusion of GOProud, though the Catholic crowd weren’t the only ones unnerved by their presence: one booth down from GOProud’s set up in the fourth row, those manning the National Organization for Marriage, which works to ban gay marriage, kept casting nervous – and slightly envious – glances at the somewhat larger crowd surrounding GOProud’s booth.

The tensions didn’t end there. Along the back wall 2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer stood waiting for a talk radio interview. “Focus on the Family considers poker immoral,” Raymer said, gesturing towards the Focus on the Family booth down an aisle. “They have no right to tell me what to do.” Raymer is at CPAC representing the Poker Players Alliance, which is lobbying to have a 2005 ban on Internet poker lifted – literally one of the last bills passed by the GOP before they lost control of Congress. “In the privacy of our own homes, consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want,” Raymer said. “Gambling is legal in America. They shouldn’t be mandating how we live. If they consider it a sin, they shouldn’t do it. But don’t tell me I can’t do it.”

Ed wrote a solid post supporting GOProud’s participation back before Christmas. Read that as prep for the clip.


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 12 13 14

As a poker player, and a Christian, I seriously wonder what Focus on the Family’s problem would be with forking over 10% of your winnings on any given week to your local church.

Ryan Anthony on February 20, 2010 at 5:55 PM

McCain Hater on February 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM

His point was that Scripture has no direct quote of Christ saying “Don’t be gay” so therefore nobody can claim Christ’s authority against homosexuality.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 6:27 PM

His point was that Scripture has no direct quote of Christ saying “Don’t be gay” so therefore nobody can claim Christ’s authority against homosexuality.

I guess I’m a bit dense. Granted it doesn’t say “GAY”, but the passage seems rather clear to me. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. I’m not a theologian so I won’t argue the point.

Have a nice day.

McCain Hater on February 20, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Have a nice day.

McCain Hater on February 20, 2010 at 6:58 PM

I agree with you as to the moral intent. You just walked into a highly technical debate on exgesis: do the proscriptions on homosexuality in Leviticus and Epistles have the weight of commandments of Christ, when Christ is not directly quoted on that point. in the Gospels? MC says no.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 7:13 PM

You just walked into a highly technical debate on exgesis:

This is definitely beyond me. I’ll just tuck in my tail and crawl back into my corner :-)

McCain Hater on February 20, 2010 at 7:48 PM

MC says no.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 7:13 PM

If MC is right, then the only parts of the Old Testament which are retained are those which exactly mirror things about which Jesus spoke. If that is the case, then the Old Testament is unneeded, because everything which is needed was stated by Jesus.

Of course, Jesus did say this:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law, until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever Jesus was saying here was certainly emphatic, and indicates to the observant Christian that the Old Testament is indeed needed to understand the New.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Whatever Jesus was saying here was certainly emphatic, and indicates to the observant Christian that the Old Testament is indeed needed to understand the New.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Though Paul spread a version of Christianity that dispensed with much of the OT law.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 9:30 PM

The CPAC is ejecting the OT. It is also not dealing with shamnesty. It is funded by Grover Norquist so the Muslims are our best friends in the religion of pieces. Ron Paul wins the straw poll.
.
Our only hope is what it has always been, G-d.

FactsofLife on February 20, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Though Paul spread a version of Christianity that dispensed with much of the OT law.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Are you sure you aren’t confusing Paul with Marcion?

As for Paul and circumcision, or Paul

Consider which portions of the OT dealt with the preparations for the coming of the Messiah, and what happened to those portions once the Messiah had arrived.

Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law, but he certainly changed it in many ways. The law says not to kill, and Jesus says not to hate. The law says not to steal, and Jesus says to give. The law says an eye for an eye, and Jesus says to turn the other cheek. When Jesus encounters the prostitute about to be stoned, what happens? Does he say that prostitution is OK — that as long as the prostitute has a good heart, all will be forgiven in the end?

The big question is what happens to all of the law when viewed through the lens of Jesus. Paul has that answer.

For the question of an eye for an eye, Paul paraphrases Jesus and says (Romans 12) to not render evil for evil.

Indeed, we find that Jesus has extended the moral law, and replaced the ritual law. The sacrifices of the ritual law are no longer needed — for Jesus has told us the prime thing to do in his memory.

Now, how does this relate to male homosexuality? The moral law says don’t do it. The ritual law says what the response of the people should be if they discover one doing it. In the OT, that response is not nice — the men willingly participating are to be put to death.

But Jesus and Paul are unified in what the response should be. Do not trade evil for evil. But the NT is quite emphatic as to what needs to be done when encountering evil. One does not accommodate it. One does not support it. An individual persisting in it is expelled from the community until he or she changes their behavior.

I see no problem with Paul — he merely reiterates the extensions Jesus made to the moral law.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 11:08 PM

The CPAC is ejecting the OT. It is also not dealing with shamnesty. It is funded by Grover Norquist so the Muslims are our best friends in the religion of pieces. Ron Paul wins the straw poll.
.
Our only hope is what it has always been, G-d.

FactsofLife on February 20, 2010 at 11:05 PM

I read this three or four times, and could not find a unifying thread, or, indeed, anything which makes sense.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 11:12 PM

unclesmrgol,
.
It’s very simple for anyone that wants to understand. The CPAC is violating basic Conservative principles and leaving us with very little hope.
.
If you can’t understand that, then I’m sorry.

FactsofLife on February 20, 2010 at 11:41 PM

The problem in this case isn’t whether you’re sister would have been “harmed more.”
She would still have been killing the baby.
That is more harm.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Ah, I see. So, the two children she is already raising don’t need a mentally healthy mother? WOW. Just WOW.

Your perfect judgment is noted. Praise God, that He has more grace.

ladyingray on February 21, 2010 at 5:22 AM

perhaps you’re not as familiar with my story as I thought. After being drugged and raped, I conceived my son who is playing outside with his little sister right now. I do speak from experience.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Congratulations! God can forgive…how about you?

ladyingray on February 21, 2010 at 5:23 AM

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Sin is like chalk…from our POV we see chalk from the side…we measure how “tall” our pieces of chalk are and compare it to everyone elses. But God views our “chalk” from above, and all He sees is round, white circles that are all the same shape…to God, all our sin is the same. Praise God that He can and does forgive anything, and shows mercy to human weakness.

ladyingray on February 21, 2010 at 5:29 AM

God gives two sh*ts about chalk I think.

happyfeet on February 21, 2010 at 5:31 AM

happyfeet on February 21, 2010 at 5:31 AM

Yeah, He does. But I see why so many people flee the conservative right – they think other’s “sin” is worse than their own, when it isn’t…not in God’s eyes.

To God, abortion is the same as, say, flirting with a person who is not your spouse…not that I am accusing you of this happyfeet…

ladyingray on February 21, 2010 at 5:50 AM

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Oh, stop with your “holier than thou” shtick…

ladyingray on February 21, 2010 at 5:53 AM

Congratulations! God can forgive…how about you?

ladyingray on February 21, 2010 at 5:23 AM

How wretchedly obtuse, Lady. Seriously. The objective reality of a baby in the womb, there by no fault of it’s own but our biology and, according to my faith, God’s providence, does not cancel out my compassion or grace toward others.

My heart goes out to your sister. I know how that type of violation harms a person indefinitely (read: LOTS of therapy). It’s crime with manifold consequences. I maintain the killing the baby isn’t the solution, certainly for the long-term mental health of the woman (not mentioning the physical health of the baby). I know many post-abort women and their stories are shockingly similar. Out of sight not-so-much out of mind.

*Apologies for hijacking the thread…last time I’ll post here*

Diane on February 21, 2010 at 6:02 AM

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Oh, stop with your “holier than thou” shtick…

ladyingray on February 21, 2010 at 5:53 AM

Hey, crazypants…you’ve responded to that statement three times now. I never said I was holy and you trotted out religion to which I just responded. You basically said I had no credibility to argue against abortion in the case of rape because of your sister’s situation. With or without my personal situation, I would still argue on the basis of life. It just so happens, I do have a similar life experience so I shared it. It’s no more of a moral declaration than anything you’ve said. Let’s take this elsewhere if you want to talk more (my blog has a contact email address).

Diane on February 21, 2010 at 6:13 AM

the myth of eternal crippling regret would be different than how actual human people live, really…

…broken stunted crippled people are weak … and they can reach their broken stunted crippled destination without aborting breakfast much less a fetus thingy I think. Bless their broken stunted crippled little hearts.

happyfeet on February 21, 2010 at 6:23 AM

Oh my. Trouble in paradise?

“Bring it.”

Oh, it’s already been brought-t.

(NSFW)

RD on February 21, 2010 at 7:09 AM

Ampersand, if you truly do object to what Snyder has to say, you wish to state your objection in a less uncouth manner.

thuja on February 20, 2010 at 8:20 AM

I thought I was extremely eloquent for a drunk guy posting at 3am… but even sober I stand by my post.

Ampersand on February 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM

Now, how does this relate to male homosexuality? The moral law says don’t do it. The ritual law says what the response of the people should be if they discover one doing it. In the OT, that response is not nice — the men willingly participating are to be put to death.

But Jesus and Paul are unified in what the response should be. Do not trade evil for evil. But the NT is quite emphatic as to what needs to be done when encountering evil. One does not accommodate it. One does not support it. An individual persisting in it is expelled from the community until he or she changes their behavior.

I see no problem with Paul — he merely reiterates the extensions Jesus made to the moral law.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 11:08 PM

There’s no relation to homosexuality in my comment. The prohibition on gay sex, if anything, seems to be reinforced following the Council of Jerusalem, which tossed aside the majority of Mosaic laws, narrowing restrictions down to the 7 Laws of Noah.

I was responding to the notion that the OT is needed to understand the NT. I wasn’t thinking of Marcion, but Paul’s view of Christ (while, I think, correct) certainly caused significant conflict with the Apostle Peter in Antioch, not to mention the many Jews who were open to Christ’s teaching but who also held to Mosaic Law.

Yes the OT helps to understand the NT, but Paul’s paring down of the law makes parts of the OT either anecdotal or irrelevant. If one is preparing to read the NT, Plato is a more valuable prerequisite than Leviticus.

dedalus on February 21, 2010 at 10:16 AM

God doesn’t just forgive, He gives prudence, temperance and wisdom. Better to ask for more of those gifts instead of just calling on sinners to keep sinning because they can always repent later.

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 12:49 PM

dedalus on February 21, 2010 at 10:16 AM

You are welcome to your beliefs. I believe differently. My Church believes differently too. In the three year cycle of the Mass, we will, every Sunday, read at least three passages of OT Scripture, and, on occasion, use at least one more as a response. We will not read or speak one line of anything written by Plato.

unclesmrgol on February 21, 2010 at 2:23 PM

You are welcome to your beliefs. I believe differently. My Church believes differently too. In the three year cycle of the Mass, we will, every Sunday, read at least three passages of OT Scripture, and, on occasion, use at least one more as a response. We will not read or speak one line of anything written by Plato.

unclesmrgol on February 21, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your many posts so far. I didn’t mean to assert a point of belief, or to imply that worship was at all misplaced.

My observation arises from reading Paul and seeing the influence of his Greek education and his desire to unlock Christ’s message from its local cultural moorings. He taught the message to a Roman and Greek audience, and to that end used as many figures of speech from Platonism as from the OT.

dedalus on February 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Heh…that was awkwardly funny.

SouthernGent on February 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Decent Americans know that the sexual perversion so prevalent in American society today is one of the leading causes of the downfall, the degradation of our society, of our country. Why then do we continue to tolerate the immersion of our young people in it? Why do we continue to tolerate it in our society and among our elected? Why do we continue to be silent as the homosexual agenda of forced acceptance of unhealthy sexual perversion is shoved down our throats?

ScottyDog on February 21, 2010 at 6:53 PM

My observation arises from reading Paul and seeing the influence of his Greek education and his desire to unlock Christ’s message from its local cultural moorings. He taught the message to a Roman and Greek audience, and to that end used as many figures of speech from Platonism as from the OT.

dedalus on February 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Certainly true.

Paul used elements of Plato’s works to explain Christianity to his Greek audience.

But simile based on Plato does not translate into Plato speaking through Paul. Paul is indeed speaking using Plato.

To see this, contrast Paul’s view of homosexuality (in Romans 1) and Plato’s (Socrates). They are diametrically opposed.

Again, the places where Paul “pared down” the law are identical to the places where Jesus did the same. Jesus calls us to far exceed the moral law, while calling at the same time for us to not engage in the retribution called for in the ritual law.

unclesmrgol on February 21, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Yes, Yes. Let’s ALL have the new GOP platform include the Repealing to DADT and encourage Gay Marriage. Because the Libertarian wing of the GOP party that’s attempting to take it over because they can get absolutely NO MILEAGE from their own party the Libertarian Party, we should just all jump on board. Because those Libertarians are all TRUE to their words, right? You shouldn’t give a sh!t about my religion and people shouldn’t be judged by their sexuality and the government shouldn’t regulate either one.

Ahhhh. But that’s not how it ends up now does it? Religious people need to shut up and accept things they don’t agree with. Sexuality should be explicit like the Gay Pride Parades I’ve lived with all my life growing up in Long Beach or the gay business http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadway_Corridor,_Long_Beach,_California in Long Beach; or their own Center like seniors get. They get more attention and help than any other sector of people in that community including black disadvantaged youths who enjoy the benefits of Long Beach Gangs for they’re ethnic pride. But heck, Gay people getting Gay Marriage passed nation-wide because it’s such an important thing that we all be able to have their groups on Public Schools and actively spoken about in school curriculum because it’s the most important social issue of our time.

And let’s also remember how horrible and religious and insidious the Boy’s Scouts of America is because it doesn’t want single adult males going off alone with a group of young boys and it’s absolutely horrible for a group of parents to ask the question, “Why is it so important for this adult males to have that right.” It’s so horrible, in fact, that we must make sure there are no such BSA clubs in the public schools.

If Libertarians were true to their word they wouldn’t condone either. There is either freedom and democracy to associate with those you want, or speak as you feel for everyone or someone’s rights and freedoms gets tramples on. The way this meme is set out Gays are the underdog is the story. With the entire Left and Democrat Party on their side and now Centrists and Libertarians on the other, I beg to differ. Good luck to religious freedom. That’s a thing of the past now. Just scrap that amendment anyway.

Sultry Beauty on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

And let’s also remember how horrible and religious and insidious the Boy’s Scouts of America is because it doesn’t want single adult males going off alone with a group of young boys and it’s absolutely horrible for a group of parents to ask the question, “Why is it so important for this adult males to have that right.” It’s so horrible, in fact, that we must make sure there are no such BSA clubs in the public schools.
Sultry Beauty on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Didn’t the BSA win BSA v Dale at SCOTUS? It seemed like a victory for the First Amendment against intrusive anti-discrimination legislation.

dedalus on February 22, 2010 at 5:12 PM

I’m with Ryan Sorba. Some of us still believe in timeless morals. Ed’s a sellout.

apacalyps on February 19, 2010 at 10:20 PM

What’s your favorite sin?

The Race Card on February 23, 2010 at 1:37 AM

I wonder if the intra-party politicking was similar at the turn of the century when Taft chided Republicans to embrace “negro” rights and opportunities.

Republicans have a platform well-suited for the full recognition of civil-rights for all citizens. It’s sad (and interesting) to watch so many Republicans squirm at the prospect of their party doing the right thing regarding gay-Americans.

including black disadvantaged youths who enjoy the benefits of Long Beach Gangs for they’re ethnic pride

Ethnic/racial pride sucks. There is nothing to be proud of about being born with a particular skin-tone. Pride, aside from being one of the seven deadlies, is nothing more than ego-cheerleading.

Oh yeah, many kids in Long Beach do a lot more than join gangs or prance around in parades…even black ones. Imagine that; stop the presses!

***
PS. You drew an astute distinction the other day during our brief tete-a-tete. You statement was factually correct.

The Race Card on February 23, 2010 at 1:51 AM

If Libertarians were true to their word they wouldn’t condone either. There is either freedom and democracy to associate with those you want, or speak as you feel for everyone or someone’s rights and freedoms gets tramples on.

Sultry Beauty on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Hmm. The God-given right to fist responsibly, eh?

unclesmrgol on February 23, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Republicans have a platform well-suited for the full recognition of civil-rights for all citizens. It’s sad (and interesting) to watch so many Republicans squirm at the prospect of their party doing the right thing regarding gay-Americans.

The Race Card on February 23, 2010 at 1:51 AM

There’s quite a bit of difference between civil rights for race and civil rights for a perversion which has caused the rampant communication of a disease for which we still have no cure.

unclesmrgol on February 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 12 13 14