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 say again: If this movement is going to embrace gayness in all its okayness…

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

I don’t believe that even you believe that was the point of the CPAC sponsorship. The point is that some gays wish to embrace the movement, so called. Why the harm in welcoming that?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 12:02 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

Needs repeating. Thanks!

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:02 PM

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

Actually, it is a morality issue. Many consider opposition to gay marriage to be immoral, religion notwithstanding. Morality often comes from religious adherence, but not always. There are many who atheists who oppose same-sex unions, for whatever personal reason. There are also many religious people who favor gay marriage as well.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 12:03 PM

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

No, I disagree Ann. The IRS should not exist to rape my wallet.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM

What shows up very clearly is that the homosexual movement and its supporters has it in very harshly for the Religious Right. I mean, they resent the existence of the Religious Right. And this is becoming a political movement where a man who stands up and says “I believe in God, I believe in doing God’s will, I believe you are wrong, I believe celebrating your choices will wreck our country” must be hooted off the stage as a freak and shouted down as a bigot. And that’s a horrible change from a movement that celebrated America as a “shining city on a hill”, a political manifestation of our common duty to do what was right, because it was owed to God. And that presents a hard choice for people who believe there is always a totally right thing to do, and we have a duty to seek it out: is supporting your movement the Right thing to do?

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM

As I read the two thread on gays I can’t help but think “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
The homosexual agenda has worked. AS one who believes it is a chosen lifestyle and a sin(now I guess i’ll be called a bible thumper) I can not go against what I think is morrally wrong. But wait-I am suppose to go along with the rest of you and your PC thoughts. If I don’t I am some hateful person who just doesn’t get it. Well, I dont think you get it. Take a look at Kevin Jennings and his resume and what he has planned for your children in the public schools. Now Maine wants schood restrooms to be “transgender” PLEASSSEEE!!! do you honestly want your daughter to have to take a shower with a man??
Yea-their agenda is working quite well.

Bullhead on February 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM

No, I disagree Ann. The IRS should not exist to rape my wallet.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Oh you anarchists…

ernesto on February 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM

No, I disagree Ann. The IRS should not exist to rape my wallet.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM

It doesn’t exist for that reason. That’s what congress is for.

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM

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

Good morning to you! Might I suggest a few courses of reading comprehension before posting again?

Pointing out that arguing against “legal protections” while calling people f@ggots probably poisons the well doesn’t equate to calling for “legal protections”.

Lehosh on February 20, 2010 at 12:07 PM

…that presents a hard choice for people who believe there is always a totally right thing to do, and we have a duty to seek it out: is supporting your movement the Right thing to do?

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM

My counterpart to the Mount Vernon statement requires only a few words:

For Liberty
Against Tyranny
For Life
Against Death

If you can tell me that you believe in that simple creed without reservation or hesitation, then we can talk specifics. Those four lines are the only part of the political process that are absolutely non-negotiable to me.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM

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.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Are all marriages recognized across state lines today? The states have different marriage laws regarding heterosexual marriages, different age of consent laws and inbreeding laws.

If one state allows a man to marry a 12 year old girl with the parents consent, does that mean the adjoining state must recognize that marriage if the couple moves to that state?

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM

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

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 11:54 AM

How so? Where’s the “specialty”, and what’s the “cost” of anyone’s liberty? Allowing gays to marry takes nothing at all away from potential or existing hetero married couples. I could see if it did, there could be an argument.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM

I say again: If this movement is going to embrace gayness in all its okayness…

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I don’t believe that even you believe that was the point of the CPAC sponsorship. The point is that some gays wish to embrace the movement, so called. Why the harm in welcoming that?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Let them be conservatives. Great. But why do they have to form a group that identifies on the basis of sexual orientation if not primarily in order to promote said orientation and force other people to accept it as something good? It leaves me with the impression that the top item on their list is not conservatism.

I mean, was there a group called GOPed representing motor scooter riders there, too?

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM

If one state allows a man to marry a 12 year old girl with the parents consent, does that mean the adjoining state must recognize that marriage if the couple moves to that state?

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Why does this strawman have to come up every time? Gay marriage has nothing at all to do with marrying a 12-year old.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM

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.

Very good point and Constitutional.

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.

They can now.

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.

You can now. The only rights being violated are things government give you for being married, taxes and other benefits. Eliminate those and there are no rights violated. In other words get government out of marriage, the bed room and the “churches”.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Grayzel on February 20, 2010 at 12:13 PM

First let me say that those of us who have a problem with this lifestyle, and I do, I think we address this problem in another way other than politics.

We all have personal sins and none of us come to any political party as “pure” in God’s sight. So if they want to be a part of the conservative movement, that’s fine, but it is when they want to start imposing their lifestyle upon me (in the form of specific laws, education, etc.), that I have a big problem. The very fact that they have organized into a group (Go Proud) tells me that they are looking for something more than just fiscal conservatism. They are promoting who they are for some reason, eh?

Case in point: Do we have “GOP Adulterers Proud” and “GOP Bestiality Proud” groups? These people may very well be voting GOP and that’s fine. I just don’t need to know about it and have it promoted. And I certainly don’t want it written in my laws and taught in the classroom.

PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Bullhead on February 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Homosexuality may or may not be a sin in the Christian tradition, but we’re not a Christian Democracy, like some countries in Europe. Gay men and women don’t hurt anyone by their lifestyle. Actually, denying gay men and women the right to marriage encourages promiscuity and thus creates more of a public health problem. I can tell you many major cities have STD problems: in LA 25% of gay men have aids.

Normalizing gay men and women is the best for society. And gay issues do differ significantly from other moral issues such as abortion, where human life and murder are both found in the religious and secular traditions.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on February 20, 2010 at 12:13 PM

I mean, was there a group called GOPed representing motor scooter riders there, too?

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM

You’re giving me ideas here, Ed!

Seriously, I think that the idea of GOProud was conceived as a pushback against the idea that homosexuality is ipso facto liberal. I don’t believe it’s so much about the homosexual agenda as it is about saying, “The Democrats don’t have our votes completely wrapped up. Some of us still actually believe in the liberty we profess.”

Right or wrong? I dunno, but there are certainly fewer groups in conservative “identity politics,” if you could call it that.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:14 PM

PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:13 PM

GOProud was founded as a conservative Republican gay organization, as opposed to the Log Cabin Republicans who are a Democratic front group.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on February 20, 2010 at 12:15 PM

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM

No. I do not give blank check support to “liberty” these days. It confuses people who think I ought to celebrate things I can barely tolerate, and then they get very angry because they feel I lied to them about being cool.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Gay men and women don’t hurt anyone by their lifestyle.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on February 20, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Tell that to the above-referenced photographer who had to $6600 for not photographing a “gay marriage.”

The photographer’s rights were violated and he had to pay.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Why does this strawman have to come up every time? Gay marriage has nothing at all to do with marrying a 12-year old.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM

But you just said what one state recognizes, they all have to recognize, Jet. Is that correct in all cases, or not? We can legislate anything nationwide if that’s true with one state legislature’s vote.

Why even have state legislatures? Wouldn’t we be better-off abolishing the state legislatures if everything is nationwide, and sending our only lawmakers to DC to make law for all of us?

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM

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

The IRS is and will remain federal. Historically, it has recognized a marriage certificate from all 50 states, even though those states have had different standards (chiefly age).

For those cases the IRS does not have a separate marriage criteria that it uses to override state governments. Currently, it only singles out gay people with valid state licenses.

Regulating marriage should be handled at the state level. We don’t need the federal government overriding the states.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM

How so? Where’s the “specialty”, and what’s the “cost” of anyone’s liberty? Allowing gays to marry takes nothing at all away from potential or existing hetero married couples. I could see if it did, there could be an argument.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Let me revert to my earlier argument about owning an apartment building, where I, as a Bible-thumper, don’t want a gay couple living under my roof. I can be sued for discrimination, and lose. There was a case in CA some years ago, where the judge ordered the woman to post her ‘sin’ all over her building, to show she was a bigot.

The woman was a Christian, and felt her belief wouldn’t allow her to rent to the couple. Her conscience was on the line, and the state by way of a judge decided of itself she was somehow ‘evil’.

Things like that are what will lead to imposition, worst on a person’s conscience.

And, no, it’s not the same as discriminating against blacks. As a Bible-thumper, I can say there’s nothing in Scripture that can allow me to say my conscience keeps me from renting to a person of color. Being black isn’t a sin. But, in my personal religious belief, certain sexual choices (like rape) are a sin. And, no, I’m not trying to say gays are all rapists.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM

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

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 11:54 AM

How so? Where’s the “specialty”, and what’s the “cost” of anyone’s liberty? Allowing gays to marry takes nothing at all away from potential or existing hetero married couples. I could see if it did, there could be an argument.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Actually, it does start encroaching on others because it makes it “normal” in society and then it gets taught to my children as normal. It is not normal for the reasons Sorba said and I don’t want it taught to my children as normal. (BTW, I don’t agree with Sorba’s tactics but I agree with his reasoning.)

PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Why does this strawman have to come up every time? Gay marriage has nothing at all to do with marrying a 12-year old.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM

It certainly does have something to do with it if you are claiming that one state must recognize the marriages that every other state dreams up.

Are you hoping for a uniform federal law to define who can marry who in all states?

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM

No. I do not give blank check support to “liberty” these days. It confuses people who think I ought to celebrate things I can barely tolerate, and then they get very angry because they feel I lied to them about being cool.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Well Chris, you can’t “tolerate” something you agree with. I advocate liberty in the traditional mold, not “libertine” living. Too many people do indeed get those concepts confused.

There are specifics to be argued, don’t get me wrong — but liberty/tyranny life/death is a good place to start if we are going to start over. It’s where our founding fathers started, and it took them thirteen years to get it right (1776-1789). Hopefully it won’t take us that long. I think the constitution is a pretty solid document as it is.

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM

We all have personal sins and none of us come to any political party as “pure” in God’s sight. So if they want to be a part of the conservative movement, that’s fine, but it is when they want to start imposing their lifestyle upon me (in the form of specific laws, education, etc.), that I have a big problem. The very fact that they have organized into a group (Go Proud) tells me that they are looking for something more than just fiscal conservatism. They are promoting who they are for some reason, eh?
PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:13PM

There legislative agenda is here and their direction, which is totally their right, puts the homosexual agenda first.
Their agenda is not one of a Conservative because all benefits are based on special designation for their particular group and those rights supercede anyone and everyone else’s rights.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Hmmmm. Does sound a tad..er..discriminatory, doesn’t it?

a capella on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Seriously, I think that the idea of GOProud was conceived as a pushback against the idea that homosexuality is ipso facto liberal. I don’t believe it’s so much about the homosexual agenda as it is about saying, “The Democrats don’t have our votes completely wrapped up. Some of us still actually believe in the liberty we profess.”

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:14 PM

O.K. Now I better understand what this might be about on one level. Intellectually, that is. But my sentiments run more with those of PrincipledPilgrim. Even the appearance that we are mortgaging our values for some votes is unsettling to me. It still seems like short-term gain in xchange for long-term pain.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

The photographer’s rights were violated and he had to pay.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Such is the difficulty of running a commercial business. Try firing someone incompetent who is a member of a “protected class”. I agree that government should get off the back of business.

However, this photographer’s business was in a state where gay marriage is illegal. His problem is with anti-discrimination regulation not with gays marrying.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

But why do they have to form a group that identifies on the basis of sexual orientation if not primarily in order to promote said orientation and force other people to accept it as something good?

I don’t believe they see it in that light. I don’t really know, I’m not one nor do I fully ‘get it.’ But I think in the big picture, it matters not. For whatever reason(s), and they do have their own, they seem to identify more with the right in terms of governance and political philosophy.

It leaves me with the impression that the top item on their list is not conservatism.

In one aspect, maybe. But is CPAC’s priority governance or sexuality? They clearly didn’t reach out to CPAC for the sexuality issue, why must CPAC shun them based on that?

I mean, was there a group called GOPed representing motor scooter riders there, too?

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM

No, but should that group be shunned based on motor scooters alone?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 12:25 PM

There Their legislative agenda

FIFM

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Gay marriage has nothing at all to do with marrying a 12-year old.

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM

As Buddhapundit pointed out, it has to do with your “full faith and credit” argument. You seem to think that that means that all states must adopt the laws that any one state passes.

The determination of death is a state-level issue. For quite some time, states had different standards for determining death. You could be dead in one state and then moved to another where you would be legally “alive”. That was finally done away with when the states VOLUNTARILY signed onto a treaty standardizing the determination of death, but that was a voluntary decision on the part of the states, not a matter of “full faith and credit” forcing one state to adopt the standards of “legally dead” of another.

The gay marriage issue raises federal problems in terms of taxes, benefits, and immigration (as we have family-based immigration rules), so that federal impact must be taken into accout with the notion of marriage, which makes it more complicated than something like driver’s licenses (though giving licenses to illegals would raise the same sort of federal problems).

neurosculptor on February 20, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I take the same attitude toward homosexuals that I take toward anyone: What you do behind closed doors(if you’re two consenting adults) is none of my business-but if you insist on making the ‘private’ public then I have the right to object.
That’s not to say that I don’t have other issues with homosexuality-I support DADT, don’t support “hate-crimes” laws, think that married “straight” couples should be first choice for adoptions, -but if in the end same-sex couples can get married(I support civil unions)well, it is what it is.
As a right of center libertarian-I vote GOP-I think there are bigger issues…like …oh National security.

To GOPROUD I say: We agree on many of the big things-so welcome.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 20, 2010 at 12:27 PM

gryphon202 on February 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Makes sense to me.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 12:27 PM

There legislative agenda is here and their direction, which is totally their right, puts the homosexual agenda first.
Their agenda is not one of a Conservative because all benefits are based on special designation for their particular group and those rights supercede anyone and everyone else’s rights.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Ugh. :-(

PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:27 PM

It’s beyond insanity that anyone thinks that the “Mount Vernon Statement” or the open acceptance of homosexuality as a positive, or at least neutral, social component is in he least bit conservative. It is not. This author is a fool. I love the Goldwater quote though. It came, of course, from late in his life when his ideas began to stray pretty damn far from the true conservative fold…and reality. But whatever justifies the “argument,” right?
Thanks to “conservatives” who have internalized post-modern doctrines to the point of absolute unawareness (it is the water they swim in)we are going to further devolve and degenerate into some sort of negative-rights “glibertarianism” in the name of achieving fiscal restraint (good luck!) and the approval of your social and media masters. Adios, suckers. There is NO difference from this movement and 20th century liberal abominations like the Great Society. None. Typical, thoughtless, and intellectually-rudderless modern Republican self-soiling milksoppery.

exlibris on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Hmmmm. Does sound a tad..er..discriminatory, doesn’t it?

a capella on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Yeah…kinda like those evil banks who were discrinating against people who didn’t have the means to repay the mortgages for which they were applying. Good the the gubmint stepped in…/

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

As Tommy Christopher notes, Olbermann’s segment was “homophobia and transphobia at their most insidious.”

Eh, not really. Transphobia?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

However, this photographer’s business was in a state where gay marriage is illegal. His problem is with anti-discrimination regulation not with gays marrying.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

And the photographer was discriminated against and fined.

If he owns the business and doesn’t want to photograph something that is not even legal in his state why is it discriminatory?

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Even the appearance that we are mortgaging our values for some votes is unsettling to me. It still seems like short-term gain in xchange for long-term pain.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I agree.

OTOH, the governor reflects the heart of the governed. This whole discussion is very revealing of where the heart of America lies.

PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:31 PM

exlibris on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

You are correct, Sir.

PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM

No, but should that group be shunned based on motor scooters alone?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Not unless they’re Furries. If they’re Furries, KTWF.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM

exlibris on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

The question remains for those folks of like thought:
How Should We Then Live?

PrincipledPilgrim on February 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM

The photographer’s rights were violated and he had to pay.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Such is the difficulty of running a commercial business. [snip] His problem is with anti-discrimination regulation not with gays marrying.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:24 PM

The basics of the case are this: a lesbian couple needed a photog for their commitment ceremony. They called Elane’s Photography. She said, “no, I’m a Christian, and it violates my conscience to be involved with your ceremony.” Elane’s was hauled before a human rights tribunal and fined $6600 for refusing to provide her services.

New Mexico has decided that even for non-critical services like photography, a business does not have the right to refuse service on religious grounds. This is very disturbing, or it should be. So even though I nod my head in agreement with Repurblican’s general thesis that hetero conservatives ought to be more welcoming to gay conservatives, where the rubber actually meets the road, existing rights are being transferred from one group to the other and political inclusion should not mean that we can’t discuss that rationally. (As Sorba decidedly did NOT, but then hardly anyone else is, either.)

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Typical, thoughtless, and intellectually-rudderless modern Republican self-soiling milksoppery.

exlibris on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Dude. Nice language. Hats off to you, sir. ;-)

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:37 PM

New Mexico has decided that even for non-critical services like photography, a business does not have the right to refuse service on religious grounds. This is very disturbing, or it should be.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Yep. We’re fucked.

(But not you, Laura. Totally agree, FWIW.)

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 12:42 PM

New Mexico has decided that even for non-critical services like photography, a business does not have the right to refuse service on religious grounds. This is very disturbing, or it should be. So even though I nod my head in agreement with Repurblican’s general thesis that hetero conservatives ought to be more welcoming to gay conservatives, where the rubber actually meets the road, existing rights are being transferred from one group to the other and political inclusion should not mean that we can’t discuss that rationally. (As Sorba decidedly did NOT, but then hardly anyone else is, either.)

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Agree 100%. I own a business. It is partly to bring in extra money, but also somewhat of a ‘mission’ for which I feel strongly. Part of that involves me providing service to a particular group where I see a need. If anyone outside that group asks for my services, I would decline, as it is contrary to my mission. Could be seen as discriminatory from the outside, and yes, I am limiting the profit I could be realizing. But it is my business, started by me, with my money at risk and starting for a specific reason. Gov’t has no right is dictating to me how to manage my business.

In the same vein, I know that some Christians feel that a good business decision is to run their business based on Christian principles – if they are faithful to God, He will reward them with success. Whether you believe this is good business sense or not is a non-issue. It comes down to whether you believe they have the right to run their business as they see best, or if we need some enlightened ruling class to tell them what they’ve decided is best.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:44 PM

If he owns the business and doesn’t want to photograph something that is not even legal in his state why is it discriminatory?

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

My view is that gay people should be allowed to marry and photographers should be allowed to turn down work for any reason.

I’m fairly confident that gay people won’t have any problem finding an abundance of exceptional wedding planners.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM

I’m fairly confident that gay people won’t have any problem finding an abundance of exceptional wedding planners.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM

But there are also plenty with a chip on their shoulder (like the lesbian couple in the story mentioned) who will decide to make it political and sue the non-compliant ‘for the good of the law’. And even worse, judges willing to punish business owners because of some spoiled brat litigants.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Hmmmm. Does sound a tad..er..discriminatory, doesn’t it?a capella on February 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM

The vibe I got too.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM

I don’t believe that even you believe that was the point of the CPAC sponsorship. The point is that some gays wish to embrace the movement, so called. Why the harm in welcoming that?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Summed up: EWWWW!!! GAYS!!! SIIICK!!!

That’s pretty much the entire mindset Sorba and his kind are working from.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM

My view is that gay people should be allowed to marry and photographers should be allowed to turn down work for any reason.

I’m fairly confident that gay people won’t have any problem finding an abundance of exceptional wedding planners.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM

But the point is that this couple didn’t and pursued legal action. It’s the agenda.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:50 PM

JetBoy on February 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM

For the record, I was opposed to that proposed amendment–the Defense of Marriage Act? Is that what it was called?

It was an imposition on the rights of the People of the various States.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Yeah…kinda like those evil banks who were discrinating against people who didn’t have the means to repay the mortgages for which they were applying. Good the the gubmint stepped in…/

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM

I was referencing the link showing the gay group’s support for small businesses which are gay.
I saw no support for small business which are not gay.

a capella on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Does getting over homosexuality issues mean accepting ghey marriage?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I was referencing the link showing the gay group’s support for small businesses which are gay.
I saw no support for small business which are not gay.

a capella on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Gotcha. Looks like we’re on the same side on this one then. Good to have ya!

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM

This is very disturbing, or it should be. So even though I nod my head in agreement with Repurblican’s general thesis that hetero conservatives ought to be more welcoming to gay conservatives, where the rubber actually meets the road, existing rights are being transferred from one group to the other and political inclusion should not mean that we can’t discuss that rationally. (As Sorba decidedly did NOT, but then hardly anyone else is, either.)

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Few people speak as abusively and ignorantly as Sorba. When some on the gay rights side do, they are idiots who hurt their cause as much as Sorba hurts his.

If you favor a roll-back of much anti-discrimination law, I agree with you. Probably SCOTUS Chief John Roberts does too. The state should issue a marriage license to gays but not compel private businesses to work the event. The fact that NM has it reversed demonstrates that the two are not inevitably linked, and the anti-discrimination laws are more insidious than marriage laws.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Do objective moral standards exist? If they do, then we would be wise not to contradict them through national policy.

After all, moral law requires a Lawgiver, and that Lawgiver isn’t agnostic when it comes to obedience. If there’s a given issue that’s important to the Lawgiver, and if a nation chooses a policy that says “buzz off, we’re going our own way on this”, then that nation can expect judgment when the Lawgiver’s patience runs out.

So, ask two questions and act accordingly.

1) Does God exist?

2) Does God say this issue is critical for a nation?

Remember, our founders believed that we humans are not the ultimate arbiters of right & wrong, nor that we have the liberty to do anything we damn well please. If you disagree, then perhaps you should call yourself something other than “conservative.”

OhioCoastie on February 20, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Does getting over homosexuality issues mean accepting ghey marriage?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Not necessarily. I, of myself, oppose gay marriage and adoption. However, I have no problem with gay people as individuals despite (or because of) my religious beliefs.

I prefer taking people one-on-one, as persons. Everyone, no matter what, can go to Heaven as easily as I’m able through my Lord.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 12:57 PM

I’m fairly confident that gay people won’t have any problem finding an abundance of exceptional wedding planners.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM

+eleventy for that one. :-)

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Summed up: EWWWW!!! GAYS!!! SIIICK!!!

That’s pretty much the entire mindset Sorba and his kind are working from.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM

And that’s pretty much my mindset, MC. That is, I do not and will not apologize for, or hide, the fact that I think that homosexual acts are sinful, and that their mainstreaming into society undermines the family and, thereby, society itself.

I say again, let them identify as Republicans and vote however they want. But as long as they need to wave the pink flag, it is not conservatism that is the inspiration for what they do.

Without apologies.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 1:00 PM

But there are also plenty with a chip on their shoulder (like the lesbian couple in the story mentioned) who will decide to make it political and sue the non-compliant ‘for the good of the law’. And even worse, judges willing to punish business owners because of some spoiled brat litigants.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I ran a small business and hate dealing with the government. To the extent that they create an environment enabling incompetent people to file lawsuits in hopes of a quick settlement, it’s awful.

I’m in favor of tort reform, think states should issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and believe churches should be allowed to apply strict moral standards to their members.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Summed up: EWWWW!!! GAYS!!! SIIICK!!!

That’s pretty much the entire mindset Sorba and his kind are working from.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Perhaps that’s the basis some people take, but the vast majority of us oppose and condemn homosexuality with the rationale as adultery. Not “EWWWWWWWWWW” but based on solid, dispassionate reasoning.

darii on February 20, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 12:58 PM

BTW, very nice website. I enjoy it greatly when someone with interesting political views is also an obviously talented web developer.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 1:08 PM

If you favor a roll-back of much anti-discrimination law, I agree with you.
dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Yes, I do. There are a lot of issues brought into sharp relief by the fact that society is a lot more accepting of homosexuality than it used to be; what, exactly, are our religious rights these days? And the more laws they make, it seems the more restricted our rights are.

Christian pharmacists who don’t want to hand out abortifacients and Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to people carrying alcohol or with dogs – when is the absence of service legally allowable? What about a gay person who does not want to serve someone who they find objectionable? (Surely some examples of that exist… and frankly I wouldn’t put it past that b’stid Phelps to create one, just so he can file another lawsuit.)

In general, I favor reverting back to being able to legally, freely associate – or not associate – with anyone we choose. Including refusing to hire the Christian pharmacist if he doesn’t want to dispense drugs that you want to sell. Let him start his own pharmacy.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Homosexuality is a moral rottenness to the bones of any movement. Once that type of perverse behavior is condoned, any divine blessing is probably withheld IMO.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Agreed; the nature of personal liberty.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Does getting over homosexuality issues mean accepting ghey marriage?

darii on February 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Not yet, I think. The Democrats have largely managed to oppose gay marriage without incurring a stigma of homophobia.

The longer gay marriage is safely legal in several states, the more both parties have to face the senselessness of their policies.

RightOFLeft on February 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I realize your point but, as a Christian, I believe the Majesty is everywhere, even in Man’s darkest places.

All things work to the glory of the Self-existent One.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 1:15 PM

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 1:08 PM

You’re very kind. I would dearly love to take credit for that, but it’s via Studio Press.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Read the first chapter of Romans then. Homosexuality is specifically described as the ultimate state of many of those who have rebelled against The Almighty One.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 PM

The Democrats have largely managed to oppose gay marriage without incurring a stigma of homophobia.

RightOFLeft on February 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Heh, good point. Obama hasn’t been called out on that in any serious way, for example. The John Aravosis quote says it all: And the day that an anti-gay bigot gets booed at CPAC, you all better start being very afraid.

Along those lines, sooner or later people will give up the false notion that the GOP hates minorities, too. And then… goodbye, Democratic party. They’ll have nothing left but Big Government to run on.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 1:24 PM

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I know. It’s an abomination, as the Perfect One says.

The Majesty of Creation also says that all who call on the Name of the Lord shall be Saved.

I get in Dutch with other Christians on this matter, but I accept the Word of the Lord as the fullest Truth. He said everything that matters, He alone is the final definition. None are above the Lord Jesus, because He is of the Father and is also part of Him. Those who saw Jesus with their own eyes have seen God Himself.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Everyone has opinions and personal beliefs and that’s OK however that doesn’t automatically qualify them as government mandates or fodder for divisive political party debates.

For the Right, Gay blind has to find the same place as Race blind not because of some popularity issue but because the popularity of civil rights for all is the issue.

Speakup on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 PM

But the point is that this couple didn’t and pursued legal action. It’s the agenda.

Branch Rickey on February 20, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Then the state of NM disagrees with me on both issues. I think they should roll back their anti-discrimination apparatus (I mean photographers? who cares?). I also think the state has a requirement to give the lesbian couple a license.

There are two unrelated agendas. 1.) The harmful idea that government needs to step in and remedy every social problem. 2.) The more benign idea that gay people who want to establish a household should have access to the same legal structures that other households have.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Homosexuality is a behavior not a state. I don’t believe anyone is homosexual, sorry, but I’m not alone. Homosexuality is an action just like adultery or drunkenness. People may choose to behave in those manners until they are identified by those terms, but they really never are integrally a drunk, adulterer, or homosexual.
I can be an Hispanic male integrally, but not an Hispanic male homosexual, no rather one can be an Hispanic male who practices homosexuality.
It’s absolute idiocy to compare homosexuality with race.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Homosexuality is a behavior not a state. I don’t believe anyone is homosexual, sorry, but I’m not alone. Homosexuality is an action just like adultery or drunkenness. People may choose to behave in those manners until they are identified by those terms, but they really never are integrally a drunk, adulterer, or homosexual.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:33 PM

No, you are not alone, cjk. Not by a longshot.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Who you sleep with is a choice.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Who you sleep with is a choice.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Though who you are attracted to isn’t. Most straight guys experience this on a daily basis.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Who you sleep with is a choice.

Liam on February 20, 2010 at 1:38 PM

True. But I’m not yet convinced that whom you are physically attracted to is.

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 1:43 PM

There’s no way anyone’s going to convince me that there’s anything natural or not perverse in desiring to use another mans sh*t-hole as a sexual organ.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM

If I’m attracted to my neighbors wife….well then I must sleep with her. When a pedophile is strongly attracted to sleep with a child….well then?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM

About the Ryan Sorba “incident”, can anyone explain why this man was booed the second he was introduced and before he uttered a single word?

If it was because of his involvement with the ACORN sting, then that gives me pause.

If there is no explanation then something is very, very suspicious.

Unless he has made past remarks against GoPride. I just don’t understand how or why he was booed at the second of his introduction.

Absent of any prior malice on Ryan Sorba’s behalf the onus of starting this entire debacle is firmly upon those who heckled him.

carbon_footprint on February 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM

And that’s pretty much my mindset, MC. That is, I do not and will not apologize for, or hide, the fact that I think that homosexual acts are sinful, and that their mainstreaming into society undermines the family and, thereby, society itself.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 1:00 PM

I’m not asking for apologies, and that “no apologies” BS is really becoming a worthless meme, since conservatives don’t ask for apologies for those opinions. However, a good deal of us do oppose you directing public policy based on your aversion to some people’s sexual attraction towards other adults.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:53 PM

There’s no way anyone’s going to convince me that there’s anything natural or not perverse in desiring to use another mans sh*t-hole as a sexual organ.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Do you believe that’s what’s happening here?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 1:55 PM

a good deal of us do oppose you directing public policy based on your aversion to some people’s sexual attraction towards other adults.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:53 PM

And many of us do not have an aversion to some people’s sexual attraction towards other adults as the basis for our opposition to some gay legislation.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Remember when ol’ rosie was so proud to get married? She’s out there committing adultery in public now. I hope her ex takes every cent she’s got. Welcome to government controlled marriage, tough guy.

peacenprosperity on February 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 1:53 PM

And a good many of us do oppose you directing public policy based on your acceptance of some peoples perverse activity with one another.
You’re so intolerant.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Are you joking or something? Do you need a biology lesson?
If you answered no to those questions, than why is so hard to fathom why we are opposed to such sin and don’t want it anywhere near us and our families? It’s unacceptable and detestable to me and therefore I don’t want anything to do with their political support.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:00 PM

There’s no way anyone’s going to convince me that there’s anything natural or not perverse in desiring to use another mans sh*t-hole as a sexual organ.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Do you believe that’s what’s happening here?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Maybe not exactly, no. But that’s the underlying premise, conscious or not, of those who advocate gay “marriage” and hate crimes legislation.

And many of us do not have an aversion to some people’s sexual attraction towards other adults as the basis for our opposition to some gay legislation.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Then from what source do the reasoned arguments against opposition come from if not that very aversion? I speak as one who both thinks and feels when it comes to this matter. Because someone senses that something is wrong but cannot articulate it as well as others does not mean that his opinion is wrong. In fact, the very situation in which we find ourselves–that of having to defend marriage as something that takes place solely between a man and a woman–should tell us that something is very wrong already.

Ed Snyder on February 20, 2010 at 2:06 PM

There’s no way anyone’s going to convince me that there’s anything natural or not perverse in desiring to use another mans sh*t-hole as a sexual organ.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 1:47 PM

What about the one-third of young men who use a woman’s butt hole? I find it unappealing but younger straight guys all seem to brag about it. Are their sex acts unnatural for them?

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 2:07 PM

We are all stronger together, and gay conservatives are as much an ally of the conservative movement as heterosexual conservatives are.

So it’s not simply the case the GOP is stronger with homosexual conservatives, is glad to have them on board and won’t discriminate etc.? No. In true liberal adherence to majority-minotirty relations they are as important to the conservative movement as heterosexual conservatives.

In that case shouldn’t they attain equal representation? Where are all the homosexual GOP Senators and Congressmen? Shouldn’t the Pres. nominee or at least his VP be a homosexual? Etc., etc.

aengus on February 20, 2010 at 2:07 PM

…than why is so hard to fathom why we are opposed to such sin and don’t want it anywhere near us and our families?

It’s not. I do not advocate such behavior either.

It’s unacceptable and detestable to me and therefore I don’t want anything to do with their political support.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:00 PM

In a close hypothetical election of major importance to the country, would you want their votes to add or subtract from your position?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM

For the Right, Gay blind has to find the same place as Race blind not because of some popularity issue but because the popularity of civil rights for all is the issue.

Speakup on February 20, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Yes, okay, “Gay blind” is all well and good. These are my clients, my neighbors, my family members, too. Everyone could list every gay person they know to establish some kind of credibility. (Some of my best friends are…)

I am perfectly happy to align with GOProud on matters of fiscal conservatism and whatever else we have in common. But sooner or later we’re going to experience a parting of ways, because gay rights necessarily restrict religious rights. This is not about how people feel. Feelings are a really crappy thing to base law on. This is about what we give the government the power to restrict us from doing, or in some cases, not doing. (I started to type, what the government allows us to do or not do, and then was horrified at how wrong-headed and insidious that concept is.) This isn’t personal or hateful, and it’s not about an “ick” factor. In creating new rights for gays – or if you look at it as Ted Olsen does, acknowledging them – rights religious people have previously enjoyed will be restricted. The big tent is fine, as long as we can have a real discussion inside of it to hash this stuff out. Up to this point, gays have basically been told “you can’t have what you want, so get over it.” Flip the question: Is there a way to add these rights without essentially telling religious to “get over it” ?

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Of course I find that disgusting. I don’t take get my sexual preferences from the porno industry!

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4