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 10 11 12 13 14

Oh Ha-Ha.

Hardly!

Archimedes on February 20, 2010 at 3:23 AM

Even those funky druids with their stone circles.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:22 AM

They got a good conversion offer: Convert and see some good looking women completely naked during their rituals.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM

some scientific research done on interracial children being “confused” or prone to personality schism and related crime. This is a huge interest of mine. WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES? A link? A site somewhere? A blogger? *cough* Anything.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:21 AM

http://www.whitehouse.gov

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM

You want hypocrisy on homosexuality? Remember this?

The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually — yet they completely reject the label of “homosexual.” The research was conducted as part of a longstanding effort to better understand Afghan culture and improve Western interaction with the local people.

The research unit, which was attached to a Marine battalion in southern Afghanistan, acknowledged that the behavior of some Afghan men has left Western forces “frequently confused.”

In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually — “because they were not homosexuals.”

Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot “love” another man — but that doesn’t mean they can’t use men for “sexual gratification.”

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:27 AM

Well, that’s it for me, folks. I am officially retired from ever voting again. What’s next? Will the GOP start providing parts and service for the abortion machine that has killed tens of millions of unborn children over the last 28 years?

If the party of my registration is now putting its stamp of approval on institutionalizing immorality (and, no, that’s NOT the same as what you do at home; convention halls are noone’s home), then we deserve to become the next Greece, whether you’re talking about the one brought down by sensualist self-indulgence or the one brought down by statist dependence.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 3:27 AM

Convert and see some good lookingsaggy breasted feminists women completely naked during their rituals.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM

Fixed it for ya.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:28 AM

Convert and see some good looking women completely naked during their rituals.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM

Links?

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:28 AM

Questioning her bigotry clearly means you’re anti-Christian, you atheist scum.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 3:17 AM

Yeah, godless. Soulless. Puppy sacrificer at the alter of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse, all that. Wait…

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:28 AM

http://www.whitehouse.gov

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM

Raaaaacist!

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:29 AM

JENFIDEL said what???????????????????????

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:23 AM

When you look at what results from interracial marriages like the Precedent, Tiger Woods and the murder of Nicole by O.J. Simpson, I have to wonder if those “natural law” advocates didn’t have a point.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 3:29 AM

http://www.whitehouse.gov

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM

Okay, I gotta admit, that’s pretty funny.

One day Obama is going to be a hell of a case study for a soon to be very famous psychologist.

Still, I think Senor Soetoro really went off the rails thanks to Ayers and the Lib Brigade moreso than this mixed race family. He was the perfect piece of unmolded clay for them to get their grubby little hands on, and lo and behold, they crafted themselves an obsidian/alabaster prince that 52% of this country got sucked into voting for.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:30 AM

JENFIDEL said what???????????????????????

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:23 AM

I’m actually trying not to misquote her…I’m bleary-eyed with insomnia so I have no idea what page it was on in this thread and jumped in late. Others here can tell you better. But, she did own her statement which I saw and asked for her sources since she said it was credible research. Sociological/psych studies are my porn. I want to see it first hand.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:31 AM

If the party of my registration is now putting its stamp of approval on institutionalizing immorality (and, no, that’s NOT the same as what you do at home; convention halls are noone’s home), then we deserve to become the next Greece, whether you’re talking about the one brought down by sensualist self-indulgence or the one brought down by statist dependence.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 3:27 AM

What, do you think gays shouldn’t be allowed in public?

I don’t exactly think the gays at CPAC were parading around in leather chaps and fondling each other on the convention floor, dude.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:32 AM

*suckered into, not sucked into. Bad typo to make in this thread, isn’t it? :)

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:32 AM

But, she did own her statement which I saw and asked for her sources since she said it was credible research. Sociological/psych studies are my porn. I want to see it first hand.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:31 AM

I did not say it was “credible research”-you did.
I said it was my opinion and that advocates of such theories “had a point.”
This is a far cry from saying that I support such thinking wholesale and/or that I based my views on any kind of formal research.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 3:35 AM

I think Senor Soetoro really went off the rails thanks to Ayers and the Lib Brigade moreso than this mixed race family. He was the perfect piece of unmolded clay for them to get their grubby little hands on, and lo and behold, they crafted themselves an obsidian/alabaster prince that 52% of this country got sucked into voting for.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:30 AM

That’s just about it.

Sociological/psych studies are my porn. I want to see it first hand.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:31 AM

We all want our porn first hand, dear.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:35 AM

We all want our porn first hand, dear.

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:35 AM

What if it’s verbal?

First ear?

eh…I’m sleepy.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:36 AM

GSBP, it’s the public acceptance of their choices and preferences in a political context that I find unacceptable. I’m done.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 3:37 AM

*suckered into, not sucked into. Bad typo to make in this thread, isn’t it? :)

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:32 AM

Typo, huh? WWFS? (What Would Freud Say)

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:38 AM

We can have as many debates as we want about the conservative tent, but for the moment, I’m for keeping it as big as possible if it means getting Obama out of office in 2012.

If a dog sprouted 20 foot fire-breathing horns and talking snakes crawling out of its ears, I would ask it two things: 1. Are you going to kill me? 2. Will you vote for the GOP nominee over Barack Obama?

If the answers are “no” and “yes,” then said abomination against nature is just fine and dandy in the conservative tent.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:39 AM

And you’re absolutely free to do so.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 3:40 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 3:37 AM

Fine, then go and hang up your voter reg card. But when the conservative landslide hits this fall and again in 2012, don’t be like one of those lame guys who claims to have been at a perfect game when he was really watching it at the bar. If you want to leave the bandwagon just as it’s about to strike gold, be my guest. Every group needs a Pete Best.

(Yeah, I mixed metaphors like crazy there. If Dennis Miller can do it, anyone can.)

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:42 AM

Typo, huh? WWFS? (What Would Freud Say)

platypus on February 20, 2010 at 3:38 AM

Something in German (not Austrian, Barry) that none of us would understand. Then he’d light up a cigar and boink his mom. Kooky guy, that Freud.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:43 AM

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 3:29 AM

Wow.

Jenfidel, we might agree that gay marriage is bad but just shut up. I don’t want to be associated with crazy, stupid, and bigoted crap. And if you aren’t a bigot, then you’re just plain stupid. “Interracial” children?

Wait. Waitwaitwaitwait. That argument does make sense…
if you’re a racist.

If you aren’t a bigot (as you claim) you clearly don’t realize this makes you look like you have few white bedsheets in the closet.

So just stop. We don’t need racist crap like that just like conservatives don’t need birthers. They’re nuts and they give the reasonable, rational people a bad name.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 AM

What, do you think gays shouldn’t be allowed in public?

I don’t exactly think the gays at CPAC were parading around in leather chaps and fondling each other on the convention floor, dude.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:32 AM

I want to ban the Folsom Street Fair. I think all decent people can agree on that.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:47 AM

I want to ban the Folsom Street Fair. I think all decent people can agree on that.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:47 AM

I think even most gays would want to stay as far away from the Folsom Street Fair folks as humanly possible.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:48 AM

No, no, no.
I admit to asserting that interracial marriage seems to often lead to personality disorders that have resulted (in the public examples I cited) in immoral and/or criminal behavior.
Products of such marriages seem to have mild-to-severe identity problems.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM

I did not say it was “credible research”-you did.
I said it was my opinion and that advocates of such theories “had a point.”
This is a far cry from saying that I support such thinking wholesale and/or that I based my views on any kind of formal research.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 3:35 AM

Ah, I see that now. I apologize for misreading that. I assumed actual research when you said you “cited” examples. Though, you do reference (with some degree of authority)certain sociological outcomes as if you studied them personally or read them. Can you remember where?

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:49 AM

I think even most gays would want to stay as far away from the Folsom Street Fair folks as humanly possible.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 3:48 AM

Exactly.

But general restrictions on gay people in public does have an upside. They make me look badly dressed in comparison.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:50 AM

Allah. When are you going to come out?

Gregor on February 19, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Wrong! It is not Allah who’s suppressing lust for men, it’s that Douche in the video.

Michelle Dubois on February 20, 2010 at 3:52 AM

Michelle Dubois on February 20, 2010 at 3:52 AM

Another country heard from! That’s pretty funny. I like to go to bed on a good laugh (don’t tell my husband ;))

Good night everybody- ’twas fun.

Hades69 on February 20, 2010 at 3:53 AM

Wrong! It is not Allah who’s suppressing lust for men, it’s that Douche in the video.

Michelle Dubois on February 20, 2010 at 3:52 AM

Can we just stop this whole stupid pop psychology “those who disapprove of/dislike homosexuality are actually in the closet, secretly lusting after men” meme? It’s just dumb, knee-jerk reactionism.

And those leading the drug war probably have huge piles of coke next to their beds. And everyone who hates the Yankees secretly loves them. Not to mention that white people who are racists are secretly black.

Come on.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:57 AM

hey Jenfidel, if you can link something you’ve read, do try. I’ll check later on today.

night night all!

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 4:01 AM

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 AM

Calm down.
I didn’t say anything about “interracial children.”
Don’t catch MadCon’s disease of labelling anyone but themselves as a bigot, please.

Diane on February 20, 2010 at 3:49 AM

You don’t have to be a clinical psychologist to see the outcomes of certain behavior; all you have to do is read a newspaper.

And with that I bid all you dime store pundits Good Night.

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 4:04 AM

Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 4:04 AM

To rephrase more calmly, think about how your point comes across.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM

Fixed it for ya.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:28 AM

Fairuza Balk says otherwise.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:14 AM

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:14 AM

And I’d add Tonya Kay for good measure.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM

I admit to asserting that interracial marriage seems to often lead to personality disorders that have resulted (in the public examples I cited) in immoral and/or criminal behavior.
Products of such marriages seem to have mild-to-severe identity problems.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Calm down.
I didn’t say anything about “interracial children.”
Jenfidel on February 20, 2010 at 4:04 AM

Yes, you did.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:26 AM

And yes, some Pagans can be moonbatty but then you got pagans like Sully Erna lead singer of Godsmack, a Wiccan and a self-professed Conservative Republican.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:27 AM

pssst…here is a link. The password is XXXXXXXX

daesleeper on February 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Psst…here is a link . Why not this one?

I mean really, where does our government say that the Bible is the basis of law?

BryanS on February 19, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Psst…here is a link. Why not use that one too?

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 4:28 AM

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:14 AM

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:19 AM

Exceptions that prove the saggy-fat-feminist rule.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:31 AM

HA! Mormonism! lolololololololololol

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 AM

HA! Mormonism! lolololololololololol

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:32 AM

Mormonism is funny?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:34 AM

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:34 AM

yes

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:37 AM

Is it funnier than, say, believing a man is a god, and a corpse came to life?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:38 AM

Is it funnier than, say, believing a man is a god, and a corpse came to life?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:38 AM

Very much so.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:41 AM

Mormonism is funny?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:34 AM

Yes. Not Scientology or Atheism funny but it is still funny.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:43 AM

Yes. Not Scientology or Atheism funny but it is still funny.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:43 AM

Good point.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:43 AM

I think religious bigotry is funny. NOT.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 4:45 AM

GOProud will be getting money and support from me! Just read a bunch of stuff at their site and I have to say I agree with everything so far.

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 4:46 AM

Mormonism is funny, Scientology is funny, Christianity is funny, atheism is funny?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 AM

But when the conservative landslide hits this fall and again in 2012, don’t be like one of those lame guys who claims to have been at a perfect game when he was really watching it at the bar.

Shaping up to be center-left, not conservative.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 AM

Like in South Park: The native americans came from Israel?

Oh wait. Let’s see what a Mormon website trying to discredit the South Park portrayal says about this claim:

3. Moroni said that all Native Americans came from Jerusalem – FALSE

There is nothing in the history of Joseph Smith to suggest that Moroni said that all Native Americans came from Israel. In fact, the Book of Mormon records that there were people here besides those who had originally come from Jerusalem.

Okokokokokokok. So not all of them were from Jerusalem. And that’s supposed to be completely reasonable? “Well, it’s not like all the Indians were from Israel. Only some of them.” Oh, ok. I mean I could never believe all the Indians in North America somehow magically came over from Israel, but if it’s only some of them, it becomes eminantly reasonable!

Seriously?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:50 AM

Mormonism is funny, Scientology is funny, Christianity is funny, atheism is funny?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 AM

You’re funny.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:51 AM

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:48 AM

And I’d exact Christianity from your list but I really don’t know why you care, so whatever.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:52 AM

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 4:45 AM

Mormonism has some wonderfully absurd claims. No where near as absurd as the claims of a crappy science fiction author but they are still absurd.

I make fun of my own religion, am I bigoted against myself?

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:53 AM

I think religious bigotry is funny. NOT.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 4:45 AM

Hilarity at 4:52 am.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:54 AM

To be honest, darii, I’m just trying to get a bead on whether you believe in “sky fairies” at all, and if you do, why argue degrees of silliness?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:54 AM

To be honest, darii, I’m just trying to get a bead on whether you believe in “sky fairies” at all, and if you do, why argue degrees of silliness?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:54 AM

Sky fairies? Yeah, now those are hilarious! That part of Scientology?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:56 AM

Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.
– Thomas Jefferson

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:58 AM

Sky fairies? Yeah, now those are hilarious! That part of Scientology?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:56 AM

Nope, but C-47s figure prominently in the Science Fiction series, er, I mean religion.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 5:01 AM

Wait, nope, they were Douglas DC-8s that Xenu used, existing 75 million years ago.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 5:03 AM

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 4:58 AM

I agree. As long as one realizes that religion is based on personal faith, which is by definition irrational. Ranking degrees of silliness between religions is ignorant.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 5:04 AM

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 5:04 AM

So no Top Ten lists for Religion? Does Dave Letterman know about this?

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 5:08 AM

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 4:54 AM

You want me to be honest?

Sure. The use of the term “sky fairies” or “wizard in the sky” or whatever pejorative implies a misunderstanding about the nature of the metaphysical ontology and metaphysics involved in separated substances; an understanding which is severely limited by positivism and materialist accounts of being.

So if you think God is nothing more than an invisible wizard or a sky fairie, that’s a pretty damn funny view of separated substance.

Ultimately, to view religious claims through the lens of a positivist/whathaveyou philosophy would make them seem silly.

Ultimately, faith is not opposed to reason, nor is reason opposed to faith. One can prove the existence of God, or take it on faith. But in some ways, faith is super rational. The content of Christian faith transcends reason’s limited abilities.

But if you think rationality is wholly based on what can be measured and counted in lab science and extrapolated within that framework, yeah, it might seem irrational.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 5:10 AM

Anyway, it’s been fun. Late night makes me goofy.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 5:10 AM

To be clear, I do not want to give the impression I am an atheist. I am a Christian. But even garden variety mainstream Christianity is absurd to some people. So I do not see my way clear to mock the beliefs of others. You do. Nice.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 5:12 AM

Wow its late.

Holger on February 20, 2010 at 5:12 AM

I agree. As long as one realizes that religion is based on personal faith, which is by definition irrational. Ranking degrees of silliness between religions is ignorant.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 5:04 AM

Exactly. Thank you.

Not only is it ignorant but its borders on bigotry, especially with the my religion is better because its not as nutty as theirs.

Okokokokokokok. So not all of them were from Jerusalem. And that’s supposed to be completely reasonable? “Well, it’s not like all the Indians were from Israel. Only some of them.” Oh, ok. I mean I could never believe all the Indians in North America somehow magically came over from Israel, but if it’s only some of them, it becomes eminantly reasonable!

Seriously?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 4:50 AM

While not directly citing DNA in relation to the Book of Mormon, this article explain why DNA tests cannot provide conclusive proof of whether a person belongs to a specific ethnic group (such as Israelites among Native Americans).

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 5:13 AM

My religion really has it the worst. Very few agnostic groups, no loud and obnoxious spokespeople like Dawkins, we’re a very quiet minority and we don’t take up much ad space.

Maybe because our scripture, if it existed, would be one page, large print, “We don’t know jack.”

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 5:13 AM

To be clear, I do not want to give the impression I am an atheist. I am a Christian. But even garden variety mainstream Christianity is absurd to some people. So I do not see my way clear to mock the beliefs of others. You do. Nice.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 5:12 AM

To be fair, I mock all beliefs, including my own.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 5:15 AM

To be clear, I do not want to give the impression I am an atheist. I am a Christian. But even garden variety mainstream Christianity is absurd to some people. So I do not see my way clear to mock the beliefs of others. You do. Nice.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 5:12 AM

Entropent,

You have earned my respect tonight. If only more people of every faith have the outlook you do.

Maybe because our scripture, if it existed, would be one page, large print, “We don’t know jack.”

Good Solid B-Plus on February 20, 2010 at 5:13 AM

One of my favorite scriptures from the Book of Mormon is

I know that he (God) loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. (1 Nephi 11:17)

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 5:20 AM

Not only is it ignorant but its borders on bigotry, especially with the my religion is better because its not as nutty as theirs.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 5:13 AM

This is particularly egregious when done by Christians, who should know better than to bother with the mote in another’s eye.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 5:22 AM

Dont Ask Dont Tell is NOT a conservative position, it is Washington DC position. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility, not group responsibility. The Armed Forces can have rules around sexual activity (not all hetero-sexual activity is kosher either) and people must follow the rules….that is the way to manage. DADT is a cop out and group politics, identity politics and it has no place in conservative movement, it belongs to the progressives

georgealbert on February 20, 2010 at 5:36 AM

Can we just stop this whole stupid pop psychology “those who disapprove of/dislike homosexuality are actually in the closet, secretly lusting after men” meme? It’s just dumb, knee-jerk reactionism.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 3:57 AM

“What else can I say? Everyone is gay.”

I think that includes you… Don’t be embarrassed, I like men too :)

Michelle Dubois on February 20, 2010 at 5:41 AM

have not commented in long time but let me get this straight CPAC supports GAY RIGHTS??? geez whats next conservatives in support of illegal immigration?? conservatives against the second ammendment?? i might aswell stay with OBAMA SOCIALISM. STAY WITH THE DEVIL U KNOW

kippyc on February 20, 2010 at 5:59 AM

GSBP: If this is about winning, then I say that when perversion becomes mainstreamed, everybody–Americans and humanity–loses.

If GOPriders are primarily concerned about conservative principles, why do they feel the need to identify themselves by their sexual preference as a group? What does that have to do at all with sound fiscal policy?

Nothing at all, with the added bonus that the GOP’s acceptance of a group that self-identifies in this way sets it at odds with support of the family, which is the goal of any fiscal policy that matters.

So, why should I vote for a party that, between these people and Dick Cheney, embraces the same socal values as Democrats?

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 6:01 AM

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 6:01 AM

can’t wait until people like you go away and realize the GOP isn’t your little club. I’m with the GOProud! You are the old guard. Go away and be angry somewhere else. Your thinking deserves an ice flow.

You’re willing to relinquish this country to the democrats because your overly concerned with where some dude puts his d!ck. Way to screw the country because you have issues.

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 6:18 AM

So, why should I vote for a party that, between these people and Dick Cheney, embraces the same socal values as Democrats?

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 6:01 AM

Good question. But it doesn’t look like the Democrats are an alternative for social conservatives. So I guess they have a choice to either stay home and take themselves out of the voting pool (and by extension out of power), or not.

From my (quasi-libertarian) point of view, the fewer social conservatives who vote, the better. Given the size of the social conservative vote, if they all stayed home en bloc, this would, at least in the short run, redound to the Democrats’ benefit. But given the flagrant radicalism of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, maybe not. A lot of previously apolitical people are waking up, and the younger generation is increasingly libertarian rather than liberal. And by no means a majority of socons are willing to stay home when so much is at stake.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 6:27 AM

can’t wait until people like you go away and realize the

GOP isn’t your little club. I’m with the GOProud! You are the old guard. Go away and be angry somewhere else. Your thinking deserves an ice flow.

You’re willing to relinquish this country to the democrats because your overly concerned with where some dude puts his d!ck. Way to screw the country because you have issues.

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 6:18 AM

Word!

Michelle Dubois on February 20, 2010 at 6:32 AM

If the party of my registration is now putting its stamp of approval on institutionalizing immorality …

Oh, bullsh*t! Nobody is talking about legislation, nobody is talking about policy, and nobody is talking about institutionalizing anything. Nobody put a stamp of approval on anything. Ronald Reagan was a DIVORCEE and we elected him president without it somehow meaning that the Republican party endorsed divorce. But Ed Snyder undoubtably thinks he’s holier than Reagan as well.

Well, I congratulate you on the specks you have pointed out in others’ eyes, Ed — but in the course of your own comments you have laid bare the LUMBER YARD poking out of your own.

American Elephant on February 20, 2010 at 6:33 AM

Hrmm, two plus pages since my scriptural response to all of this (1 Cor 13:1) and not one of you throwing a fit about the gay group being allowed to attend has been able to respond. Not surprising.

Keep in mind that the only people Jesus ever got angry with were the people who were supposed to be believers but who had corrupted His temple. He approached every sinner with love and changed their hearts through His love.

Just something to think about.

Benaiah on February 20, 2010 at 7:23 AM

This is a sticky hard er, conundrum.

In the first place is “sexual orientation” a major plank of American Conservatism? If so, then how far behind can race and religion be? Isn’t the main thing supposed to be about politics and economics? Are we to be like the Socialists and try to mandate social norms if given the chance? Are we Conservatives to get into the business of telling fellow Americans what is and isn’t acceptable in one’s own life?

As a Conservative I take the traditional view that what people do in their own lives is their business…I just don’t want these things presented to me as being normal or somehow great when I instinctively find them to be disgusting. But to publicly denounce someone like that is, to me, impolite, un-Christian and simply rather mean. Let God deal with what He says are transgressions…the transgressors have been warned already. Jesus took us out of the business of stoning for immoral acts two thousand years ago.

These vice laws (and taxes!) to me are outside the bounds of the Constitution. People routinely engage in behaviors that ruin their lives whether they are legal or not. It is a hallmark of both the Progressives and of the “religious right” to attempt to legislate morality, though the latter has rarely had that power outside of getting local blue laws enforced, dry counties and so on.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 20, 2010 at 7:37 AM

And it’s attitudes like yours, Michelle and Ampersand, that are going to ensure that we not only lose in 2012 but, considering how fast information travels now, in 2010 as well.

Why? You take exactly the same attitude that J-Lo at NRO did when she decided to support Romney; to wit, “This is the sandwich we made, now you’re going to eat it.” Take Romney’s Mormonism, social liberalism, and Lt. Cdr. Data personality, and it all added up to DO NOT WANT for so many GOP-ers that a man as irascible and self-absorbed as John McCain managed to get the nomination–something that would have never happened under any other circumstances.

Sexual perverts–not those who are devoted to traditional family values–are in the very large minority of not only Republicans but Americans. If CPAC represents the Republican wave of the future, we’re doomed, William.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 7:42 AM

What was this guy doing even being invited to speak?

*blech*

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 7:51 AM

Am El: You’re confusing Church and state, not me.

All: I’m not about planting bugs in bedrooms. It’s the members of GOPride that thought it necessary to bring their sexual preferences out in the open in a setting where such a thing shouldn’t, and really doesn’t matter. Why would they do that if their main desire is not acceptance of their lifestyle? A lot of people won’t say this in this or any other forum because of peer pressure, but they will say it by voting with their feet. I say it again: this has DO NOT WANT written all over it, and will spell the death of the Republican party and conservatism in general.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 7:51 AM

this has DO NOT WANT written all over it, and will spell the death of the Republican party and conservatism in general.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 7:51 AM

If conservatism wants to expand individual freedoms from oversight, that must include oversight of lifestyles, too.

Otherwise, it’s completely contradictory.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 7:54 AM

Freedom of speech.

balkanmom2 on February 20, 2010 at 8:02 AM

I have no problem with them, as long as they don’t smooch and be all over each other in front of my kids. I think we can all agree with that.

ProudPalinFan on February 20, 2010 at 8:02 AM

A lot of people won’t say this in this or any other forum because of peer pressure, but they will say it by voting with their feet. I say it again: this has DO NOT WANT written all over it, and will spell the death of the Republican party and conservatism in general.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 7:51 AM

Hmm, this is scary. Where will all the Republicans and conservatives go once your prediction is fulfilled? Will there then be only a Democrat party? Do Republicans and conservatives simply vanish from the electoral map? Or…(and more likely) are you simply wrong? The party will not destroy itself, but will marginalize those who wish to interfere with the free exercise of personal choices which harm no one else?

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 8:12 AM

I have no problem with what consenting people do in their bedroom, I do have a problem when they push it in public as “normal” and want it adopted as a normal lifestyle which it clearly is not.

There is no conflict between being gay and being conservative IMHO, matter of fact I’m surprised that more gays are NOT conservative.

A true conservative is for smaller and less intrusive government that will protect you from outside dangers and let you do what you please in the privacy of your own home.

The current government? Not so much.

gdonovan on February 20, 2010 at 8:17 AM

Good job! Speak on!

OSUBuciz1 on February 20, 2010 at 8:18 AM

You’re willing to relinquish this country to the democrats because your overly concerned with where some dude puts his d!ck. Way to screw the country because you have issues.

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 6:18 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

CPAC boos speaker for condemning invite to gay conservative group

That’s a flat out distortion, a lie. Members of goproud waiting in the audience for this guy booed. That’s what the members of the left do, they are against free speach. Great if ed thinks it’s a good thing that cpac invited a gay group. If ed supports the blind and willingingly ignorance of that decision. It’s his free speach right that allows him to support moral relativism. He does it all the time in his posts afterall it’s ed who believes that barry, nancy, harry and barney are “just good Americans who have a different idea about how things should be done.” It’s ed who thought chris matthews was right to take Michalle Bachmann to task.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 8:25 AM

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 8:25 AM

Good points. That’s why Breitbart and Beck have made such a splash–more forceful advocacy. But an army needs lots of soldiers of all ranks.

JiangxiDad on February 20, 2010 at 8:40 AM

have no problem with them, as long as they don’t smooch and be all over each other in front of my kids. I think we can all agree with that.

ProudPalinFan on February 20, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Not really. Homophobic reactions are really very personal. One of my family members feels that way, and she’s a staunch Dem.

So it’s not political at all.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 8:41 AM

The current government? Not so much.

gdonovan on February 20, 2010 at 8:17 AM

It’s an interesting irony today, isn’t it?

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 8:42 AM

I have no problem with them, as long as they don’t smooch and be all over each other in front of my kids. I think we can all agree with that.

ProudPalinFan on February 20, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Yes. It’s tacky and juvenile to deliberately make others uncomfortable. Ryan Sorba, for example, is tacky and juvenile.

entropent on February 20, 2010 at 8:45 AM

It’s an interesting irony today, isn’t it?

The problem with liberals is they feel instead of think.

I had an ex-wife who stated feelings justified actions, I pointed out there is a group of men who feel it is their right to have sex with small boys. By your rules they would be justfied in luring small boys into sex.

How do you like them apples? She was speechless and had no reply, another reason she is no longer in my life.

Years ago I learned to ignore my feelings in some situations since they can be manipulated with almost predicably bad results.

I have had a much better life since then!!

gdonovan on February 20, 2010 at 8:48 AM

By your rules they would be justfied in luring small boys into sex.

See, I never quite get it when people imagine that they are being rational, when really, emotional thinking is operating full force. I have noticed men are susceptible to fooling themselves in that way.

Having sex with children, which is illegal, is not comparable to having sex between adults, which is legal.

See how comparisons really work? Apples and apples, oranges and oranges.

Now, if you’d like to compare someone having sex with their favorite ewe and bringing it to CPAC, smooching away, you MIGHT actually have an argument.

Quite a few states have no laws against that, or so I hear. :)

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 8:52 AM

AnninCA, this is not about expanding personal freedoms. It’s not about making or repealing laws about what people do in their homes. It’s about a group covertly forcing others to accept it’s sexual practices by making wedding those preferences in its name to political issues that are in all other ways neutral with regards to those practices.

Thank you for your civility, thuja. But at the risk of being uncouth myself, I don’t think the Founding Fathers had a delegation at the first Constitutional Convention that included practitioners of buttsecks to make sure that the vast and oppressed buttsecks peoples had their rights recognized.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12 13 14