Gays at CPAC: The Sharon Statement, Sorba, and a curious reversal of roles

posted at 11:00 am on February 20, 2010 by Patrick Ishmael

As conservatives set their political course this week, much has been made of the newly-released “Mount Vernon Statement,” touted as an ideological update to the “Sharon Statement” that was published in 1960 by the Young Americans for Freedom and facilitated by no less than William F. Buckley himself. While the MVS is an uninspired recitation of conservative thought, the Sharon Statement is, half a century on, still a fine treatise on freedom and discourse, especially in its opening lines:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

It is a statement of openness and freedom; of the right to contract; of the sanctity of the individual and his or her right to choose how they will live without undue coercion or influence by the government or his peers. It is a statement that emphasizes common ground on common principles among people of common sense. It is, in short, a statement of ideological strength and a road map to successful governance by and for the People — a statement that is altogether relevant as we prepare for the coming elections.

YAF’s Sharon Statement is effective because it sketches out a way to bring people together on those common principles. And that’s not always easy; it’s difficult even within the conservative movement to always find common ground, and it’s even rarer when both the Right and Left agree on something. Yet every once in a while, someone comes along that facilitates that spirit of cooperation — someone that’s just naturally a uniter, not a divider.

Perhaps “unity through attempted division” is a more appropriate description of the following example. And unfortunately, it was an inheritor of the Sharon mantel that is at the center of it all.

Meet Ryan Sorba. Sorba is the bombthrowing “leader” of a the California chapter of YAF that CPAC attendees booed off the stage yesterday. Sorba bemoaned the inclusion of GOPROUD, a gay conservative group at the conference, as a sponsor of the conference. By the end of his talk, he was declaring who his enemies were.

So if infamy is what he wanted, he got it. Not since Ann Coulter’s infamous 2007 remarks has there been as gratuitous and public a slam on homosexuals at CPAC, although even tonight it sounds like Coulter may be reprising her role as lead bombthrower. (We’ll know the details soon, I’m sure.) Yet in the conservative blogosphere, the reactions to both statements were almost uniformly disdainful. Following Coulter’s outburst, the Captain’s Quarters blog — that is, Hot Air’s very own Ed Morrissey — put it this way:

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn’t require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as “faggots” or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

Coulter’s remarks were and are risible, and were appropriately pilloried by just about everyone online. But was that sentiment reflected at the conference itself back in ’07? Not so much. James Joyner reporting for OTB that day:

I would note that, an hour after the speech, people are still lined up around the block for autographed copies of her book. Granted, most of them are young kids of college age. Some of them are older than I am. Somehow, I can’t imagine Ronald Reagan being pleased.

Nor could I. Today’s change in reaction in the room is made all the more satisfactory given the Coulter experience. Yet the irony is that while Coulter’s remarks would have been derided yesterday by a room full of conservatives, the same sort of sexually-oriented taunts were used just two nights ago by avatar-of-modern-liberalism Keith Olbermann against — second drum roll please — Ann Coulter. As Tommy Christopher notes, Olbermann’s segment was “homophobia and transphobia at their most insidious.”

But it’s worse than that. It’s a symptom of a larger problem on the Left when it comes to the dignity of the individual and an insight into the burgeoning awakening on the Right, and it’s poised to do some real political damage sooner rather than later. As John Aravosis from the very liberal AmericaBlog notes, “When conservatives are standing up for gays, and Democrats treat us like we are an embarrassment, there’s a problem.” (via Ace of Spades)

No one wants Sarah Palin to be President. But we’re talking about our civil rights. I think a lot of straight Democrats don’t get that. They see out and proud gay people, a lot of us have good jobs, nice clothes, get to travel the world (and a lot of us don’t, but they don’t ever meet them), so they think our civil rights battle is some kind of champagne party to us, as if we’re doing it for fun because we really have everything we could ever want. Well, anyone who thinks that didn’t grow up gay. They didn’t grow up thinking they were a pervert. That they were sick. That they’d never find love, never get married, never have children or a family of their own – because God made them wrong. They didn’t grow up thinking they’d have to kill themselves once they hit the age of 30 because they’d be single, and people would ‘figure out’ that they were gay, and then they’d lose all their friends and family and their job and career. And they knew they couldn’t live with that….

To the White House, the DNC, and our leadership in Congress: You are messing with people’s lives, and we know it. And the day that an anti-gay bigot gets booed at CPAC, you all better start being very afraid.

Indeed, and it’s not as if the Right is or has been without gay rights supporters. As Young Americans for Liberty notes,

Barry Goldwater once said, “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay,” Goldwater asserts. “You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.”

Toss in Darth Cheney, Ted Olson, and others, and you have the makings of an important course change in American politics. And it’s about time.

The conservative movement has common cause with all who are seeking self-determination, and whether you’re citing the Sharon Statement or Barry Goldwater for support, it’s worth considering that our individual rights are best preserved when people of common interest come together, rather than tear each other down.

And one need not agree with the whole platform of gay conservatives, just as one need not agree with every tenet of every subgroup of conservatism. As Ed noted when the GOPROUD issue came up in December,

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.

We are all stronger together, and gay conservatives are as much an ally of the conservative movement as heterosexual conservatives are. We are stronger by emphasizing our important commonalities rather than our less important differences. Fortunately, it appears the attendees at CPAC ’10 agree.

I hope that Sorba’s statements don’t represent the larger YAF group’s sentiments, but if they do, how far the group has fallen from its founding document.

Update: YAF’s Facebook page is getting a bit of an earful over the matter. For those wondering whether the Sharon Statement or YAF as an organization has a position on homosexuality, the group responds:

YAF’s guiding principles does not address gay people. YAF fights to uphold the Sharon Statement.

A specific and public disavowal of Sorba’s remarks is probably not too far behind. Stay tuned.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 2 3 4

I’m glad Sorba was booed; he was obnoxious and stupid. What he did was pointless, and there at the end, with the enemy callouts, it was embarrassing.

You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay.

Yes, they do. And I honestly don’t care what grown people do in their bedrooms. Don’t ask me about my sex life, and don’t tell me about yours. But at the end of the day, this is very much about rights.

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, because I bring it up every time in these threads… granting rights to gay folk to marry means taking them away from religious folk. People on the other side of the argument often say, “Yes, taking away your right to be a bigot,” but we really are talking about a transfer of rights here, and that should be discussed openly.

In Elane Photography v. Willock, a photographer was fined $6600 for refusing to take photos of a same sex commitment ceremony. This, in New Mexico where same sex marriage isn’t even legal. There were other photographers available, and it certainly wasn’t a life or death medical situation. The business owners were essentially fined for the way they practiced Christianity. That’s not how I practice my faith, but how a person practices their faith should not be decided by the state.

Chai Feldblum, Obama’s EEOC pick, gave an example of a Christian owned B&B. In England, a non-discrimination law, if passed, will have the effect of requiring churches to hire gay folk; certainly that can happen here as well.

There are people of good will on both sides of this argument. I don’t blame gay folk for wanting their legal rights to be expanded, but the bottom line is that expansion comes at the cost of my rights. Sorba missed a real opportunity by his defensive, obnoxious behavior.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM

In Elane Photography v. Willock, a photographer was fined $6600 for refusing to take photos of a same sex commitment ceremony.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM

I’m constantly reminded, whenever I enter a retail shop or restaurant, that the owners reserve the right to refuse service to any customer, for any reason. Why is it different in New Mexico? Is this like a state law thing?

ernesto on February 20, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Is the “constitutional right to be gay” anything like the constitutional right to abort babies? I don’t remember seeing anything in the constitution that addresses either issue. What we have is a constitutional right to be free from harassment by government. In no way was Sorba infringing on that right, as a private individual or as a representative of a group.

Now that all being said, I don’t find the inclusion of GOPround at CPAC to be particularly galling or hypocritical on its face. To my knowledge, they aren’t calling for gay marriage to be enshrined in legislative imprimatur (at which point homosexuality stops being private, since marriage is not a private institution, but I digress…).

Strategically, I think it may have been a mistake, as it seems to feed into the whole “conservative civil war” narrative, but in the end, that doesn’t matter if we achieve our electoral goals in November.

Personally, I come down on the side that says if the Huckabee wing of the Republican Party wants to take their toys and go home in a huff, we should let them do it — as quietly as possible so as to not raise a big stink in the supposedly-mainstream media.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:10 AM

individual liberty strengthens all of us.

rob verdi on February 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM

and an insight into the burgeoning awakening infection of moral relativism and political correctness on the Right

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM

s this like a state law thing?

A local human rights commission.

We are all stronger together, and gay conservatives are as much an ally of the conservative movement as heterosexual conservatives are. We are stronger by emphasizing our important commonalities rather than our less important differences.

Yes. It’s not my desire to shut anyone out. But neither do I want to be shut out.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM

We can argue that homosexuality doesn’t require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as “faggots” or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

Yes, I guess ‘fagg0ts’ is so much worse than ‘teabaggers’, ‘racists’, ‘terrorists’, etc. As soon as I see my anit-conservative bashing hate crime bill, maybe I’ll listen to this crap about the ‘special’ legal protection gays need. Ed has is wrong on this one.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:13 AM

of the sanctity of the individual and his or her right to choose how they will live without undue coercion or influence by the government or his peers

Like if you live in California and are against gay marriage and worked on the Prop 8 issue you should be able to participate in community life, especially if you have been active in the community for decades?

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:14 AM

California conservatives have always been the nuttiest in my experience. I’ve never experienced more overt bigotry and outright hate than when I worked for a moderate member of the California State Assembly in 1990. Our district included a heavily gay neighborhood and we had an openly gay staff member, who was a dedicated Republican and as conservative as anyone here, he was just gay. This drove the right-wingers crazy. We had many gay supporters, some “out” and many not.

I had gay friends in high school and college as far back as the 1970s. I have a gay relative now. Many of them are small businessmen and women, executives, and leaders in business who hate paying high taxes and dealing with nasty bureaucrats. They would be Republicans if we could just get past our fear of their lifestyle.

rockmom on February 20, 2010 at 11:14 AM

How old is Ryan Sorba? It is as I always say: If you can’t be stupid when you are young, when can you be? I hope he learns something from this experience, and applies it to the future.

Mutnodjmet on February 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Well done, Repurb…as were your comments on last night’s thread. It’s a shame YAF has to resort to this. Cheers.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM

In the other thread, there are about 100 logical refutations of the point-of-view put forward here, and of course much support.

JiangxiDad on February 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM

If the GOP and Conservatives really want to win, they need to bring in gays, social moderate, minorities, etc.

Does that mean selling out on pro life or controlled immigration (and preventing illegal immigration)? Hell no. But it does mean expanding the tent and not alienating potential allies.

Mr. Joe on February 20, 2010 at 11:16 AM

It’s interesting that all of these reports fail to mention that the invited speaker was booed before he spoke as he was walking towards the microphone. Will all these bloggers suddenly be opposed to booing invited CPAC guests the next time it happens?

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Nor does it mean backing gay marriage, other than perhaps just offering to leave that issue to the states to work out. Federalism is a good thing.

Mr. Joe on February 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Someone clue me in. What did Ann Coulter say?

I clicked the links and just got more links.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM

I do not really care what consenting adults do in their bedroom. Ang government should stay out of that area.

If God says that homosexuality is a sin, it’s a matter between God & the sinner (and possibly whatever church the sinner goes to) but it isn’t my concern nor should it be government’s concern.

rbj on February 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM

fear of their lifestyle.

rockmom on February 20, 2010 at 11:14 AM

And this misnomer is well past its usefulness (as if it ever had any). I am not afraid of gays or their lifestyle. I just have views on legislation that they don’t agree with.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality.

I don’t have a problem with homosexuality or homosexuals when it comes to the public sphere.

Marriage is between one woman and one man. That’s the definition of marriage.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM

The so called “gay rights” movement, and their mis-named fellow travelers, the “gay conservatives” are determined to use the State to impose their redefinition of sexuality and marriage onto the nation.

One of the founders of this movement, the late David Brudnoy, lost his philosophic bearings when he allowed his sexual preference to overcome his rationality. In later days he became an advocate of every sort of absurd statist effort to enshrine gay sexuality into local and federal laws.

It is not conservatism in any way shape or form. It is ideology and ideology as John Adams said, is the “science of idiocy”.

wraithby on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I’m sick to death of hearing about gays, blacks, Hispanics, et. al. I’m tired of people locking themselves into groups and demanding ‘rights’.

What people do in their bedrooms, as consenting adults, is no one’s business. So stop making it our business! If you have a political view, keep it at that without adding the “I’m gay” or “I’m black” provisos.

If you want to be left alone, then reciprocate and leave the rest of us alone. Most don’t want to be drawn into someone else’s bedroom even if you’re straight.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I can’t imagine why gays are the issue at all. Whatever.

It’s just so not relevant to what binds people today. We all have gay members in our families.

And we’re all pretty sick of acting like they are lepers.

Let’s move on, people.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

They would be Republicans if we could just get past our fear of their lifestyle.

rockmom on February 20, 2010 at 11:14 AM

That may be true for some, but I really don’t think it is for most. It’s a lot less of a Republican thing than it is a religious thing, and even there it’s decidedly nuanced among various denominations and in how individuals practice their faith. But where legal rights are concerned – and they are – do you think religious should just roll over and let the state establish what is allowable in how they practice their faith?

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I don’t have a problem with homosexuality or homosexuals when it comes to the public sphere.

Marriage is between one woman and one man. That’s the definition of marriage.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM

And when gays agitate on the matter of marriage, homosexuality quits being a private matter. Marriage is not a private matter, as it entails many facets of public policy. The whole “stay the out of my bedroom” canard just doesn’t cut it anymore.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.

Identifying yourself by what you do with your genitals is a fundamental conservative position? Pretending that somehow the laws of the United States descriminate against homosexuals is a fundamental conservative position? What dysfunction will be the next fundamental conservative position?

I must hang out with different conservatives then ed and this repurblican guy. No conservative I know wants to ostracize, oppress, criminalize or bother anybody gay. The conservatives I know just don’t want supra-rights created for a special interest group that identifies themselves by what they do with their genitals. The conservatives that ed and repurblican hang out with seem to think that conservatives are homophobic, biased, closed minded and mean. Gee, that sounds like the opinion liberals have of conservatives.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:20 AM

But where legal rights are concerned – and they are – do you think religious should just roll over and let the state establish what is allowable in how they practice their faith?

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Shakes his magic eight-ball:

The First Amendment of the United States Consitution says “no.”

Hmm…funny how many words they can pack into that little magic eight-ball, isn’t it?

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Toss in Darth Cheney, Ted Olson, and others, and you have the makings of an important course change in American politics. And it’s about time.

You lost me with Ted Olson… the way he’s handled this prop-8 case will have radical consequences…

Before dumping on social conservatives realize this… if this health care bill dies it will have been achieved primarily over social conservative concerns, not fiscal conservative ones…

ninjapirate on February 20, 2010 at 11:23 AM

This is PC nonsense. GOPROUD is clearly a political faction (not a private lifestyle choice) and it has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with sister left-wing causes (pro-abortion, anti-christian, anti-abstinence, anti-marriage, …) even if some of their benighted members think it’s fine. Isn’t the GOP already compromised by RINOs of all descriptions? These are just gay RINOs.

virgo on February 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM

I can’t imagine why gays are the issue at all. Whatever.

It’s just so not relevant to what binds people today. We all have gay members in our families.

And we’re all pretty sick of acting like they are lepers.

Let’s move on, people.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

This is still one of the biggest strawmen out there – even among conservatives on this issue. Those of us against ‘gay’ legislation don’t care what they are doing in their bedroom. I’m not afraid of gays nor do I treat them as lepers – I have many gay friends, some quite close friends, even had 2 gay roommates for a few years. When legislation on gay ‘marriage’ or ‘anti-discrimination’ laws affect tax revenue, legal rulings and commerce then it is an issue that I have legitimate claim to debate without being labelling a ‘homophobe’ or gay-hater.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM

They would be Republicans if we could just get past our fear of their lifestyle.

they could get past their obsession with what they do in bed and open their minds to what conservatism is really all about. If they could get over their need to justify their behavior by accepting every wacko liberal idea. Gay people who go to a conservative meeting procaiming to be conservative and then talk about nothing but gay rights are not conservatives.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Shakes his magic eight-ball:

The First Amendment of the United States Consitution says “no.”

Hmm…funny how many words they can pack into that little magic eight-ball, isn’t it?

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:21 AM

:-) Sure, but when you start getting into the nitty gritty of employment law, laws governing how businesses may conduct themselves, etc. in actual practice Christians who devoutly believe that homosexuality is a sin and they must not condone it are being regulated. I don’t necessarily agree with how their practicing their faith – I’d like to slap that SOB Phelps around, for example – but rights are a real issue here. One group gains them at the other group’s expense.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Was Sorba’s behavior at CPAC awful? Of course.
Should we embrace, or even ignore, the homosexual agenda? Of course not.

jgapinoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

They would be Republicans if we could just get past our fear of their lifestyle.

rockmom on February 20, 2010 at 11:14 AM

The gay-deranged need to also stop with the bible-thumping, and the “gays really want to destroy Christianity” nonsense.

I’m sick to death of hearing about gays, blacks, Hispanics, et. al. I’m tired of people locking themselves into groups and demanding ‘rights’.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 11:19 AM

The nerve of some people…demanding equal rights and all…

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Ann Coulter’s infamous 2007 remarks has there been as gratuitous and public a slam on homosexuals at CPAC

Huh? This is beyond ridiculous. Do you know what Coulter actually said? If you do, then explain how that was a slam on homosexuals. It was a swipe at Edwards (and a funny one) and at political correctness and the idiocy of ‘rehab’.

Maybe I just need to go to rehab for not seeing the delusional “gratuitous and public a slam on homosexuals” that you claim?

Sheesh.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

When legislation on gay ‘marriage’ or ‘anti-discrimination’ laws affect tax revenue, legal rulings and commerce then it is an issue that I have legitimate claim to debate without being labelling a ‘homophobe’ or gay-hater.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Yes, exactly, well said.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

I’d like to slap Phelps around, for example

Me, too, at least verbally.

jgapinoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM

This is still one of the biggest strawmen out there – even among conservatives on this issue. Those of us against ‘gay’ legislation don’t care what they are doing in their bedroom. I’m not afraid of gays nor do I treat them as lepers – I have many gay friends, some quite close friends, even had 2 gay roommates for a few years. When legislation on gay ‘marriage’ or ‘anti-discrimination’ laws affect tax revenue, legal rulings and commerce then it is an issue that I have legitimate claim to debate without being labelling a ‘homophobe’ or gay-hater.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Sort of. The tax credits argument is sort of odd to me. Why not allow them to pass along their life savings without taxation?

I don’t get that one.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM

…rights are a real issue here. One group gains them at the other group’s expense.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Oh I absolutely agree, Laura. The constitution explicitly forbids government from restricting the free practice of religion.

What I think is the problem is the idea that there is a “constitutional right to be gay.” The constitution says nothing about that (as I alluded to in an earlier post). And since the constitution says nothing about it, federal law short of a constitutional amendment (which I am not necessarily for) should have nothing to say about it either.

That is the strongest constitutional arguement against gay marriage I can come up with. It really says little about Sorba, however, since he is not a government official and the constitution also enshrines a right to free speech.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM

THE NEW AND IMPROVED HOT AIR – now with even more politically correct bending over backwards and forward to advance the fringe left’s demands to un-define marriage.

whatcat on February 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Come on. What did Ann say?

I can’t tell from the clicks in the article.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Careful, you might upset the ones who want to be liked by DC republicans if you bring facts into the discussion ;)

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Someone clue me in. What did Ann Coulter say?

I clicked the links and just got more links.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM

It was about Edwards, the word “fagg0t” (have to step around Hotair’s PC censor) and having to go to rehab for mentioning that word. It had nothing to do with anything anti-gay.

It was reported (at the link provided, here) as:

Near the end of her speech she said she wouldn’t talk about John Edwards because ” you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘fagg0t.’”

That is what this poster considers some major anti-gay slur. Crazy.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

In an apparent effort to prove that the new HA owners aren’t controlling content, HA seems to going gaga for gay the last couple of days.
To my irreligious friends on the Right, can you really win elections by continuing to alienate social conservatives? Will accepting abortion-on-demand and embracing (or ignoring) the homosexual agenda serve to rally the millions of conservative churchgoers to the polls?
Do not the founding documents of this Republic, documents which you claim to adhere to, honor our Creator as the source of the right to life?

jgapinoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Why not allow them to pass along their life savings without taxation?

And who exactly gets to do this?

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Huh? This is beyond ridiculous. Do you know what Coulter actually said?

NO! What did she actually say?

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

And who exactly gets to do this?

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Married people, of course.

That is the issue.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Sort of. The tax credits argument is sort of odd to me. Why not allow them to pass along their life savings without taxation?

I don’t get that one.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM

There are other tax benefits alloted to married couples, for example joint income tax filing. I discussed this more at length in the original thread on this subject, so look there if you want details on my thoughts here – I don’t really wanna type it all out again.

My point is that it is not right for people to label me a homophobe or ‘treating them like lepers’ because I disagree with legislation regarding homosexuality.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Personally, I come down on the side that says if the Huckabee wing of the Republican Party wants to take their toys and go home in a huff, we should let them do it — as quietly as possible so as to not raise a big stink in the supposedly-mainstream media.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I neither like nor trust the Huckster. But like I said on the other thread, I prefer never to vote again than to vote for a party I feel betrayed by. And as I said about others on that thread, gryphon202, your attitude is exactly like that of K-Lo and the way she treated anyone who did not like or want to vote for Romney. Which is why we got (ptuuuu!) John McCain as our nominee the last time.

Three points for you to consider:

1. If you think that the GOProuders vastly outnumber the moms and dads who are trying desperately to keep their kids from being exposed to a little less filth and indecency than they’re already exposed to every day without having to have it endorsed by a political party, your kind should do well in November.
2. With that kind of treatment why should we not raise a stink in the media if given the chance? What loyalty do we now owe to you and those with your point of view?
3. Finally, if the Republican Party is building a platform on the idea that we Americans are nothing but self-indulgent exmplars of Homo Economicus–that is, that all we live to do is buy a bunch of crap, stuff our faces, and self-stimulate, then either the Republican Party doesn’t understand the American soul anymore, or that soul is lost.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 11:33 AM

The nerve of some people…demanding equal rights and all…

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Equal rights to what? If you and I met and had a few beers, you’ll have equality with me long as you treat me the as I treat you. I couldn’t care less if your gay, so don’t throw it in my face. If we discuss the weather, or politics, or what-not, why toss in the “I’m gay” thing?

As for same-sex marriage, I’m for the states deciding themselves, by popular vote since it’s a morality issue. What the people decide is up to them.

As for other things, like beneficiaries of insurance or having say during a catastrophic illness, I say let the individuals decide. That’s fair, and increases personal liberty.

I should be allowed to say my black girlfriend has right to pull the plug on me if I’m on total life support the same way you and your Other should be allowed to have the same say. Equal rights there, which I favor.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 11:33 AM

The nerve of some people…demanding equal rights and all…

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

No one in this thread is opposed to equal rights.

jgapinoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Sean Hackbarth.

Ann Coulter almost made it through her CPAC speech without looking like a complete buffoon. She wasn’t funny, she rarely is, but she’s an attention whore. Near the end of her speech she said she wouldn’t talk about John Edwards because ” you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’” She’s now on non-speaking terms with any gay and lesbian friends.

I’ll post the audio as soon as I can.

UPDATE: Here’s the audio clip.

Repurblican on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

That is what this poster considers some major anti-gay slur. Crazy.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

She called Edwards a faggot?

OK, I’m clearly lost.

I truly enjoy reading Coulter right now, anyway. She makes me laugh.

I don’t necessarily agree with her, but she’s one witty kiddo.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

GOPROUD is clearly a political faction (not a private lifestyle choice) and it has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with sister left-wing causes (pro-abortion, anti-christian, anti-abstinence, anti-marriage, …)

What?? Being GAY and being a “true” CONSERVATIVE are not mutually exclusive. Don’t paint with such a broad brush. When a gay person chooses to self identify as a conservative, they have already realized that they tend to think the way that conservatives do and believe things that conservatives believe. They don’t begin with the premise that all of the beliefs that you list are correct and then say “Hmmm..just for the fun of it, I am going to say I am conservative”. I don’t know the specifics of GOPROUD…but speaking as a CONSERVATIVE gay man, I can tell you that chances are pretty good that CONSERVATIVE gay people are not AT ALL pro-abortion, anti-christian, anti-abstinence, anti-marriage.

Dan Pet on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

What I think is the problem is the idea that there is a “constitutional right to be gay.”
gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I took that as shorthand for the right to be left alone. Most conservatives agree that sexual behavior between adults should not be regulated, yes?

Gay marriage is such a can of worms… if I had my druthers we’d separate it like France does – civil marriage at the courthouse, and if you want your marriage blessed at church, then arrange that with your pastor or priest; the state is not involved.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM

If the GOP and Conservatives really want to win, they need to bring in gays, social moderate, minorities, etc.

Does that mean selling out on pro life or controlled immigration (and preventing illegal immigration)? Hell no. But it does mean expanding the tent and not alienating potential allies.

Mr. Joe on February 20, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Nor does it mean backing gay marriage, other than perhaps just offering to leave that issue to the states to work out. Federalism is a good thing.

Mr. Joe on February 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Double Dittos Mr. Joe!

redridinghood on February 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM

To my irreligious friends on the Right, can you really win elections by continuing to alienate social conservatives? Will accepting abortion-on-demand and embracing (or ignoring) the homosexual agenda serve to rally the millions of conservative churchgoers to the polls?
Do not the founding documents of this Republic, documents which you claim to adhere to, honor our Creator as the source of the right to life?

jgapinoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM

I said it in other threads and I’ll say it again (snark intended):

Dontcha know that “social issues” don’t work for the Right in winning elections?
Unless of course the social issues involved include pushing the gay agenda.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM

There are other tax benefits alloted to married couples, for example joint income tax filing. I discussed this more at length in the original thread on this subject, so look there if you want details on my thoughts here – I don’t really wanna type it all out again.

My point is that it is not right for people to label me a homophobe or ‘treating them like lepers’ because I disagree with legislation regarding homosexuality.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Well, I’m not overly liberal on some gay issues. I’m reluctant to endorse gay couples adoption. They have the same divorce/separation rate, and we have no current system to take care of the kids.

I don’t think that being raised by gay parents means you turn out gay kids.

I do think that gay couples don’t provide, today, the protection needed in case of break-up.

That’s actually an argument for gay marriage.

It’s about the kids, I think.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Married people, of course.
That is the issue.
AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Any two people in this country can join in a contract, joint tenancy, etc. that is as equal to the tax situation enjoyed by a husband or wife. Every right enjoyed in a marriage can be contracted into by two consenting adults. That’s not what their fight is about, it’s not about rights, it’s about forced acceptance. You can not force acceptance in the US yet. That would be a law against thought. You can still only legislate tolerance which is behavior.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:38 AM

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

There was stuff going on at the time that had to do with people admitting to crazy stuff and then jumping off to rehab to “be fixed”. This came on the heels of some star for a TV series having to go to rehab because he called someone else on the show a f@g, or somethign like that.

Ann was talking about something that had just happened, and roling Edwards up with it. It was very funny and perfectly appropriate, but this repurblican poster had no clue about any of that, or just chose to conveniently forget the circumstances of the time which put the context around Coulter’s words.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Dontcha know that “social issues” don’t work for the Right in winning elections?
Unless of course the social issues involved include pushing the gay agenda.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Are you against the change in DADT?

Interestingly enough, I don’t see a lot of pushback on that.

I think the issue is a dead horse.

Even among the “religious,” it appears to me that most of the Christian Right has decided that the notion that you can be religiously moved out of your proclivities isn’t accurate.

I presume the failure in that area led to that conclusion. That makes sense.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I neither like nor trust the Huckster. But like I said on the other thread, I prefer never to vote again than to vote for a party I feel betrayed by. And as I said about others on that thread, gryphon202, your attitude is exactly like that of K-Lo and the way she treated anyone who did not like or want to vote for Romney. Which is why we got (ptuuuu!) John McCain as our nominee the last time.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Oh no. My attitude is not like K-Lo’s. She was openly hostile to Huckabee. I am not. I am simply saying that there is a real danger in allowing the supposedly-mainstream media to paint the conservative movement as fractured simply because of Republican Party infighting.

In all the important things, I think you and I really do agree Ed (right up to and including the idea that McCain was a terrible nominee).

On the other hand, I don’t think that anyone who stayed home in 2008 should be too quick to criticize me for voting for McCain in the general election. (I voted in my state’s primary, anmd not for McCain, I might add)

Not sayinmg that you personally stayed home, Ed. I dunno. But a lot of people I know did, and promptly turned around to berate me because I didn’t. Well you know what, Ed? You guys who are threatening to stay home in 2010 and beyond are part of the problem. I’d rather be part of the solution.

And right now, at this point in time, my #1 goal in life is to ensure that congress is legislatively impotent, and after that to ensure that Barack “Barry” Hussein Soetero-Obama does not win election to a second term in 2012. That’s it. That’s all. No more. The rest is gravy to me.

You feel abandoned, that’s fine. You feel disaffected? I could hardly care less. But I’m going to do what I think is right, and I think the whole Huck Vs. The World thing is a distraction — and Ryan Sorba’s reception at CPAC is just a shining example to me of why that is.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:40 AM

AnninCA

this link appears in the post but there are quite a few links; I think it contains what you need to find out about what Coulter said.

RushBaby on February 20, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Yes, I guess ‘fagg0ts’ is so much worse than ‘teabaggers’, ‘racists’, ‘terrorists’, etc. As soon as I see my anit-conservative bashing hate crime bill, maybe I’ll listen to this crap about the ’special’ legal protection gays need. Ed has is wrong on this one.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Hello, Mr. Strawman! Nice to see you up this morning.

Please point to place where Ed asked for “special legal protection” for gays.

Lehosh on February 20, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Before dumping on social conservatives realize this… if this health care bill dies it will have been achieved primarily over social conservative concerns, not fiscal conservative ones…

ninjapirate on February 20, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Whatever the specific motivation is for one to oppose awful legislation is far less important than the fact that they oppose said legislation.

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Has everyone been following the links that this guy is providing?
This guy that ed and allah have brought here, repurblican, is a liberal wacko and a very angry gay person. This is what HA has come to.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Yes, I guess ‘fagg0ts’ is so much worse than ‘teabaggers’, ‘racists’, ‘terrorists’, etc. As soon as I see my anit-conservative bashing hate crime bill, maybe I’ll listen to this crap about the ’special’ legal protection gays need. Ed has is wrong on this one.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:13 AM

You have close gay friends but can’t understand how truly-offensive the word “fa66ot” can be, classy. Also, when were you called a terrorist and what did that have to do with your sexuality?

I’m not afraid of gays nor do I treat them as lepers – I have many gay friends, some quite close friends, even had 2 gay roommates for a few years.

I think it’s awesome that you don’t “treat them as lepers.” Your gay “roommates” must have felt privileged to have such a stalwart of egalitarianism living with them.

The Race Card on February 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM

http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=120

John Birch Society interviews JD Hayworth who is running against the McCainster in Arizona.

Spathi on February 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Well, I’m not overly liberal on some gay issues. I’m reluctant to endorse gay couples adoption. They have the same divorce/separation rate, and we have no current system to take care of the kids.

I don’t think that being raised by gay parents means you turn out gay kids.

I do think that gay couples don’t provide, today, the protection needed in case of break-up.

That’s actually an argument for gay marriage.

It’s about the kids, I think.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Way to totally miss the point. Your originial point referred to those who oppose gay legislation the same ‘treating them like lepers’. My point was not to discuss the pros and cons of gay marraige – I told you I addressed that last night at length if you want to look at the original thread on thie topic. My point it, time for conservative to stop bashing other conservatives by accusing that they hate gays and treat them horribly just because they don’t agree with all the gay legislation.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM

It was Grey’s Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington, who called another actor a f@g and got shuttled off to rehab. You might remember it now. It was a big deal at the time, and most people thought the whole thing was just stupid – which was Coulter’s point.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM

GOPROUD is clearly a political faction (not a private lifestyle choice) and it has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with sister left-wing causes (pro-abortion, anti-christian, anti-abstinence, anti-marriage, …)
virgo on February 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Wow, that is a shocking bit of willful ignorance. Try using Google before you talk about things you know nothing about.

Lehosh on February 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM

The nerve of some people…demanding equal rights and all…
JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

That’s the gayest thing I’ve ever seen written.

*bobbing, weaving, zig zagging toward bunker*

Bishop on February 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM

This guy that ed and allah have brought here, repurblican, is a liberal wacko and a very angry gay person. This is what HA has come to.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM

O RLY? That’s news to me.

Repurblican on February 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM

As for same-sex marriage, I’m for the states deciding themselves, by popular vote since it’s a morality issue. What the people decide is up to them.

Normally, I’d agree…whatever can be left up to each state should be. But marriage needs to be recognized across state lines. Not to mention there are Federal benefits to married couples.

So with that, and the fact that this is all about equal rights as guaranteed by our Constitution, it’s a national issue…and one that shouldn’t even be considered for a popular vote. My rights aren’t subject to that.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM

This guy that ed and allah have brought here, repurblican, is a liberal wacko and a very angry gay person. This is what HA has come to.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Yep. This repurblican certainly likes to lie – either outright or by broad ommission. It’s pathetic.

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 11:48 AM

So with that, and the fact that this is all about equal rights as guaranteed by our Constitution, it’s a national issue…and one that shouldn’t even be considered for a popular vote. My rights aren’t subject to that.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Where in the constitution is the right to gay marriage addressed, Jet?

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:48 AM

You have close gay friends but can’t understand how truly-offensive the word “fa66ot” can be, classy. Also, when were you called a terrorist and what did that have to do with your sexuality?

I’m not afraid of gays nor do I treat them as lepers – I have many gay friends, some quite close friends, even had 2 gay roommates for a few years.
I think it’s awesome that you don’t “treat them as lepers.” Your gay “roommates” must have felt privileged to have such a stalwart of egalitarianism living with them.

The Race Card on February 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Seems you’ve earned your screen name. I do agree that fagg0t is an offensive term, what I don’t agree with it legislation outlawing the use of the word. And I, along with all other pro-lifers, were called terrorists by none other than our very own Department of Homeland Security. Guess you missed that report. The ‘treat them as lepers’ was response to someone who accused me of just that because I opposed certain gay legislation.

Try to paint me as someone who treats gays as second class people – but it has no basis is reality.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Repurblican on February 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Start linking to reasonable, rational sources that back up your position with logic and truth.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:49 AM

This guy that ed and allah have brought here, repurblican, is a liberal wacko and a very angry gay person. This is what HA has come to.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:43 AM

No. I have no idea who he sleeps with and don’t care, but check the rest of his Green Room posts. He’s definitely not a liberal wacko, or even a liberal non-wacko.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Gays don’t want to accept their orientation as a not uncommon developmental disorder, because it’s personally hurtful(although perhaps shouldn’t be, but that’s another story) and is a result of no fault of their own, and still carries a stigma.

And many heterosexuals don’t want to be compelled to provide special accommodation for what they consider a disorder, and rebel at being coerced into accepting homosexuality as another version of normal.

If someone had a compulsive disorder, like frequent hand-washing, would we install sinks at all work stations in case a hand-washer was to be employed there? On the other hand, should we persecute that person to the ends of the earth?

Advocating civil rights for gays as a special class of person requires a presumption of a genetic cause to homosexuality that many are unwilling to accept, and is unproven. Thus, gay-conservative at CPAC is grating in a way that conservative who happens to be gay isn’t.

My own guess is that if we could reach a conclusion that homosexuality isn’t normal, but isn’t evil either, or a conscious choice, then the sting would come out of the whole issue. I for one don’t want it portrayed in schools or the common culture as normal,and as a equal alternative to heterosexuality, and I don’t want state sanctioned gay marriage, and I don’t want the society as a whole pressed on this issue further than it’s apparently willing to go. That being said, hatred of people with same-sex attraction who aren’t trying to push a social agenda on others is hateful and wrong.

JiangxiDad on February 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Come on. What did Ann say?

I can’t tell from the clicks in the article.

AnninCA

Also note there is no link to Ryan Sorba’s very short speech at “C”PAC. He was jeered by the small militant homosexual “GOPride” contingent there even before he got to the podium and said a word.

But like all the other relevant info/links missing in this ill-written, barely literate “post”, HOT AIR refused to link to the Ryan Sorba video on YouTube. Instead, HOT AIR would only link some blog from 2 years ago.

Why doesn’t HOT AIR just charge “GOPride” for these free ads?

whatcat on February 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM

I think the entire issue is turning on the kids. Children adopted by or involved in other methods in gay partnerships really do deserve the same protection as those in traditional husband/wife marriages.

I don’t particularly care how we arrive at that fairness. I think marriage laws are so well-established, it’s easier to just extend them.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM

If we are talking about rights, then it should be simple. You have the right to live as a gay person. Others have the right not to have to hire a gay person. Otherwise, one right would have precedence over another right… neither of which is life threatening.

PhilipJames on February 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Way to totally miss the point.
miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM

That’s her m.o.

She’s a troll who thinks the Bill Clinton victims weren’t really victims because they really didn’t say “no” to him and that most women fantasized about Bill Clinton.

Oh, and she’s about as brilliant as Mika “Abe Lincoln is my favorite Founding Father” Brezhiniski (sp?).

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM

And right now, at this point in time, my #1 goal in life is to ensure that congress is legislatively impotent, and after that to ensure that Barack “Barry” Hussein Soetero-Obama does not win election to a second term in 2012. That’s it. That’s all. No more. The rest is gravy to me.

You feel abandoned, that’s fine. You feel disaffected? I could hardly care less. But I’m going to do what I think is right, and I think the whole Huck Vs. The World thing is a distraction — and Ryan Sorba’s reception at CPAC is just a shining example to me of why that is.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:40 AM

O.K., man. I’m with ya on The Barry Situation. Again, I’m not pro-Huck in the least. I say again: If this movement is going to embrace gayness in all its okayness, it better hope that the number of gays pulling the red lever is a lot more than the disaffecteds who stay at home like I will. Not very many will be as vocal as I am. That’s the “silent” part of that whole “silent majority” deal. If you want to accomplish your goal, that’s at least something to consider from a purely tactical point of view.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Hello, Mr. Strawman! Nice to see you up this morning.

Please point to place where Ed asked for “special legal protection” for gays.

Lehosh on February 20, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Good morning! Thanks, I am glad to call people on the strawman each time they pull him out – which is pretty often on this issue which totally derails the actual debate.

And perhaps you should have read the quote I posted from the article where Ed says:

We can argue that homosexuality doesn’t require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as “faggots” or worse.

I know it’s hard to find where he calls for legal protection where he mentions “legal protection”, but if you look real hard and read between the lines, perhaps you will see it.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM

That being said, hatred of people with same-sex attraction who aren’t trying to push a social agenda on others is hateful and wrong.

JiangxiDad on February 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Oh I don’t even hate people trying to push social agendas that I disagree with. It’s nothing personal — I just reject them. “Hatred” is such an ugly word that’s lost most of its meaning in the last few decades from overuse.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM

This is where we get into a quagmire, because to grant speciality to one group cost another group’s liberty.

States should have the right to decide if they’ll recognize a marriage. Remember now, we’re discussing a morality issue, which government has no place deciding.

If I, as a Christian, own an apartment building and don’t want a gay couple living under my roof because of my religious beliefs, should I be penalized? If so, then it’s basically a state religion being imposed on me, which is in violation of the First Amendment. I have right to decide, on my property, what is allowable.

I would like to see more freedom for people in personal matters, like who I designate to decide my affairs should I become incapacitated. Government can easily allow this, but it lacks the will to do it. Or just refuses, to keep going a needless controversy.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 11:54 AM

So with that, and the fact that this is all about equal rights as guaranteed by our Constitution, it’s a national issue…and one that shouldn’t even be considered for a popular vote. My rights aren’t subject to that.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Your rights, as defined by the Constitution (BoR), are already the same as everyone else’s.

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM

That’s the gayest thing I’ve ever seen written.

*bobbing, weaving, zig zagging toward bunker*

Bishop on February 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM

You know I can’t run in these heels :P

Where in the constitution is the right to gay marriage addressed, Jet?

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Where is hetero marriage addressed?

Thing is, denying gay marriage is in violation of the Constitution. Article 4 states:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

So if one state allows gay marriage, they all must recognize it.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Ok..ok…just re-read Ed’s quote and see it in a different light – guess he was saying ‘our argument will not be addressed if we use name calling’. I totally agree with that. Sorry Lehosh (though I still strongly stand by my strong man and other points I’ve made in this thread). And sorry Ed! Mea culpa.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM

I think incest is also historically a part of our lives. That is why it’s a taboo.

It’s a complex taboo issue. Same sex sex won’t lead to procreation.

But we’re so modern, too. Does most sex lead to procreation?

Of course not.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM

States should have the right to decide if they’ll recognize a marriage. Remember now, we’re discussing a morality issue, which government has no place deciding.

That’s where you’re wrong. It is not a “morality issue”, although many make it out to be by tossing religion into the mix. It’s an “equal rights and protection issue”.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Any two people in this country can join in a contract, joint tenancy, etc. that is as equal to the tax situation enjoyed by a husband or wife. Every right enjoyed in a marriage can be contracted into by two consenting adults. That’s not what their fight is about, it’s not about rights, it’s about forced acceptance. You can not force acceptance in the US yet. That would be a law against thought. You can still only legislate tolerance which is behavior.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 11:38 AM

The IRS treatment is significantly different.

The solution at this point should be:
1.) Leave the issue up to each state.
2.) Have the Fed (IRS & SSA) abide by what each state decides.
3.) Ensure federal protections for religious institutions that teach homosexual behavior is wrong.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM

That’s the “silent” part of that whole “silent majority” deal. If you want to accomplish your goal, that’s at least something to consider from a purely tactical point of view.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I also consider the fact that there were many SEIU members who turned out for Scott Brown in MA. There has been a contingency of Obama voters, small though it may be, at almost every tea party I have been to (a few in my homestate and in the surrounding states, including MN).

When it comes right down to it, I make a lousy preacher. I’d rather lead by example. And you have three choices, my fellow conservatives: Walk with me, follow behind me, or get stepped on (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Failure is not a foregone conclusion; it is not a fait accompli. We’ll dust ourselves off after CPAC concludes and the vote of every YAF kid and GOProud activist will count just as much as every vote from Joe and Jane six-pack.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM

She’s a troll who thinks the Bill Clinton victims weren’t really victims because they really didn’t say “no” to him and that most women fantasized about Bill Clinton.

I don’t buy those stories.

I believe that Bill DID abuse his “political power” to gain sex.

But, no, I’m not one to believe Starr. I thought Starr was just simply awful.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM

That’s her m.o.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I know, I know… I got sucked in! My bigger hope is for others to see the argument and stop saying I must run screaming the other way when I see a gay guy because I’m SUCH a homophope, just because I have legitimate issues on gay legislation.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM

So if one state allows gay marriage, they all must recognize it.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Ouch. That sounds like a “commerce clause” arguement to me.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I have no problem if you are a homosexual and a conservative–IF you really are a conservative. I went to GOPROUD’s website and they push a homosexual agenda, which is where I have to part ways with them. The homosexual agenda is not the conservative agenda. Here’s a link to their mission statement. http://goproud.org/?page=legislativeagenda

Lizzy on February 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Oh Pul-leeeze!

If most homosexuals feel they “have to kill themselves when they turn thirty,” it has little to do with their very recently acquired desire to be married/parents — and everything to do with the fact that at that age, they are no longer considered sexually attractive within the gay male culture.

Gay/trans people are forever talking about being on the verge of committing suicide.

Besides the grimly comical spectacle of decidedly not dead people forever on the edge of the building, note that only the alleged reasons for this alleged looming threat ever change.

And somehow those reasons never seem to have anything to do with something wrong with them — it is always someone else’s fault.

Funny that.

And none of this whining and goal post moving and dismissal of 5000 years of human tradition and wisdom sounds terribly “conservative” to me. Libertarian? Absolutely. Conservative? Nope.

fivefeetoffury on February 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM

1.) Leave the issue up to each state.
2.) Have the Fed (IRS & SSA) abide by what each state decides.
3.) Ensure federal protections for religious institutions that teach homosexual behavior is wrong.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM

No, I disagree. The IRS needs to be federal.

That’s a boundary between state rights and federal.

AnninCA on February 20, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4