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

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

Is that the basis of the CPAC sponsorship?

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

Does defending real marriage (which I believe in) depend on in part by condemning this group’s CPAC sponsorship?

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:14 PM

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Hpothetical/smi-pothetical.
I believe that the conservative side will actually garner more votes and power by sticking to decency. I am convinced that more votes will be lost by decent moral people not voting than will be gained by slowly turning into the democat-center party.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:15 PM

I believe that the conservative side will actually garner more votes and power by sticking to decency. I am convinced that more votes will be lost by decent moral people not voting than will be gained by slowly turning into the democat-center party.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:15 PM

That is not an argument of principles.

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:16 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

We agree on that, but it is common practice among young straight couples, far beyond the restrictions of the porn business.

As unattractive as we find male gay behavior, most straight guys seem OK with with gay behavior when scantily clad attractive women are practicing it. Maybe it’s sinful, but I find it difficult to avert my eyes.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 2:17 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

Sure it is. Certainly you have been attracted to people, that you have broken up with for a reason other than their sexual attractiveness. They where late all the time, or they go drunk too much, or they didn’t mange their money well. These value judgments(or choices) that we make effect our view of the other person be they mates, or even just friends.

Kjeil on February 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:14 PM

If you want to gain a few votes by alienating a ton of votes then go for it dummies.
People like me are sick and tired of the despicable, disgusting left and want nothing to do with them or their types whether it be their racist, racial pandering, class warfare based on envy, or perverse homosexuality…..Capiche?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Are you kidding me???!!!

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Maybe it’s sinful, but I find it difficult to avert my eyes.

So you like to watch?

Just kidding.

aengus on February 20, 2010 at 2:21 PM

At least Mike Adams stands up against the homosexual power grab on the internet. Profanity-laced Ace opinion is demented as usual

PrezHussein on February 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM

They don’t march down the middle of my street proclaiming their ‘pride’ , at least not yet.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Yeah, that Sorba is such a “bombthrower.” I mean the First Amendment is cool and all that, but, like, let’s not take it to “extremes” by saying what we REALLY BELIEVE, I mean, at least, like, not at CPAC, which is, like, really cool and all.

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:23 PM

They where late all the time, or they go drunk too much, or they didn’t mange their money well. These value judgments(or choices) that we make effect our view of the other person be they mates, or even just friends.

Kjeil on February 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM

The above has no bearing on a woman’s physical beauty in my opinion. And physical attraction was what I was refering.

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM

So you like to watch?

Just kidding.

aengus on February 20, 2010 at 2:21 PM

If they made a short film with Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek called “The Shower”, I probably wouldn’t change the channel.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM

This is why CPAC is not really a conservative forum and has not been for quite a while.

tballard on February 20, 2010 at 2:25 PM

After all, just because Sorba has just come out of the crucible of the Prop 8 political war in California, he has no reason to believe that “gays” (read sodomites) are a threat to society. Were I there, I would have given him a standing ovation of one.

I am nearing 60, and, when I was a kid, it was commonly taught that the rise of homosexuality played a role in the decline of the fortunes of both the ancient Greeks and Romans. I guess it is not PC to teach that anymore, but if it is true (and I believe it is), it has critical relevance to the ongoing moral debate in the US today.

Accept homosexuality as normal, and sow the seeds of our own destruction.

Actually, we are well on our way down the drain now. Ever have to sit in front of a TV and watch a sitcom in the last few years?

The problem is the younger folks don’t realize how warm the water is (frog in pot analogy). Barring a sea-change in this country (which, if it is to come, will come from a Christian Revival, and from no other source), I fear the lethal boiling point cannot be far off.

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:27 PM

If you want to gain a few votes by alienating a ton of votes then go for it dummies.
People like me are sick and tired of the despicable, disgusting left and want nothing to do with them or their types whether it be their racist, racial pandering, class warfare based on envy, or perverse homosexuality…..Capiche?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Yes, I capiche. However, I am not arguing for one to support the opposition.

Are you kidding me???!!!

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Not in the least. Voting on principles is not dependent upon who may or may not vote the same way.

anuts on February 20, 2010 at 2:29 PM

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:27 PM

I would have stood with you brother.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Then from what source do the reasoned arguments against opposition come from if not that very aversion?

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

Marriage laws were made to encourage the best environment to raise a family – which is for the good of society. Now we can debate what is the best environment to raise a family, but I choose the believe that it is where both sexes are present in the parents because there is a fundamental difference between male and female beyond just the phisical and both boys and girls benefit from being raised by a heterosexual, in tact couple. It is not because of any aversion to homosexuality as a sexual relationship between 2 adults of the same sex. And before you bring up all the horrible anectodal examples of children with less than ideal heterosexual parent upbringing – first off, extreme cases make bad law, secondly, I do think there should be a greater penalty for divorce for the very same reason.

Finally, remember that this post was to show that there are reasons other than aversion to sexual practices that can be the basis for views against gay legislation, not a point by point explanation of the in’s and out’s of such a debate – I did more of that in the original thread on this subject and have no desire to type it all again.

miConsevative on February 20, 2010 at 2:30 PM

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

Very thoughtful post – thanks JiangxiDad.

KickandSwimMom on February 20, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Hot Air and TownHall belong together: Middle of the roaders like Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Michael the Liberal in Seattle Medved, Morrissey and Allahpundit deserve each other. I recently did an unsubscribe from TownHall and I turn off their shows whenever they come on. I confess I still read HotAir, but usually kick myself after doing so.

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:33 PM

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:27 PM

By accepting/condoning the behavior of those people, one is destroying the base of the conservative movement. Principles and belief are the root of all decent movements and like I originally said, homosexuality is rottenness to the bones and they will not stop until their behavior is accepted as completely holy and innocent.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Great job, Ryan Sorba! You pointed out that CPAC is anything but a conservative organization.

Barbara Olsen is rolling over in her grave.

sinsing on February 20, 2010 at 2:37 PM

JiangxiDad on February 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM

What fantasy! Anywhere and anytime the homosexual bloc gains any ground at all, they exploit it to the extreme using everything they got including boycotts, political pressure, and most of all litigation. Go to any high school in the country and you’ll find clubs for young homosexuals advertising in prominent locations within the school. Anyone who officially states anything even slightly derogatory concerning the perversion is quickly castigated and threatened.
Go look up Zombietime and the alley street parade to see how they behave when they have attained dominant power

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 2:45 PM

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

Bye!

Skandia Recluse on February 20, 2010 at 2:50 PM

But sooner or later we’re going to experience a parting of ways, because gay rights necessarily restrict religious rights.

No they don’t, the answer is the same rights, not less.

There’s personal conflicts every minute of every day but they don’t have more place in politics than abridging amendments does.

Speakup on February 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Before we unanimously declare that we have to run gays and their legal needs out on the basis of Natural Law—can someone point out a reason behind this other than the arrogated assumption that conservative Christianity holds some kind of monopoly on defining Natural Law?

Natural Law is meant to be something that can be found through both Faith and Reason. Murder and theft being wrong? All kinds of support within the faculties of Reason, as well as the teachings of Faith. Banning meat because Hindus really, really believe in vegetarianism? Lots of Faith, little Reason. So give me a Reason why homosexuality needs to be legally discouraged by a government pledged to being non-sectarian.

Gays can’t reproduce? Neither can old folks, infertile people, or people who diligently use birth control.

Buttsechs is yucky? Str8s have buttsechs. Why is a woman’s bunghole any cleaner than a man’s?

Gays have diseases? Whoops, lesboanians have an even lower rate of STD infection than straight women.

Some jerkwad who never got over Father O’Malley not letting him wear a pink dress to Mass suing a church? Write the laws to prevent that! Heck, if we get the state out of marriage, Jerkwad can’t sue the Catholic Church over Holy Matrimony any more than he can now sue over Baptism.

Anything I missed?

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Sure fella sticking your wang in a guys butt-hole is natural and good. LOL

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Speakup on February 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM

You’re wrong. Anywhere and anytime homos get any ground they exploit it to the maximum. How long before it will be illegal to proudly proclaim that homosexuality is a perverse disgusting and despicable sin?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Shouldn’t Gays be natural Republicans? Ever since I was little, I have been told the Republican Party is entirely populated by rich white men. Gays (at least the open ones) are disproportionately rich white men.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Sure fella sticking your wang in a guys butt-hole is natural and good. LOL

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Umm, I’m a chick—and I am no stranger to @nal. Why is my bunghole cleaner or better than some guy’s?

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:21 PM

It’s not dummy, and if you keep it up long enough someones probably gonna get sick. I guess you’re a pervert too.
But tell me, have you been marching all over town proclaiming your ‘pride’ over it?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Grew up in a democratic household I see.
Actually chief I think the homo rates are pretty even between the races.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:26 PM

I am nearing 60, and, when I was a kid, it was commonly taught that the rise of homosexuality played a role in the decline of the fortunes of both the ancient Greeks and Romans. I guess it is not PC to teach that anymore, but if it is true (and I believe it is), it has critical relevance to the ongoing moral debate in the US today.

Probably because it doesn’t make sense. Its not like Rome discovered homosexuality around 300 A.D. I blame general laziness and corruption.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Anything I missed?

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:13 PM

That gets right to the point Laura and I have been making…up until recently in our country’s history, it was understood that religious conscience wasn’t to be tampered with by the State. You don’t agree; religious conscience has to argue against homosexuality with some utilitarian argument, or by default, sexual identity must win out. That’s a wild overthrow of 300 years of religious tolerance.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Yeah, I’m kind of perv. But I can leave my corsets and cuffs at home, put on normal clothes, and go out to dinner with my husband. I’m too needle-phobic to have any more than one set of ear piercings, and no tattoos. So my husband and I could walk right by you and you’d be none the wiser.

A gay person finds it hard to hide the fact the person they are out with happens to be of the same sex as themselves, no matter how normal they look otherwise.

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:33 PM

‘Gopride’ They take something as filthy, disgusting, despicable, and soooo shameful as their behavior is and constantly label it as ‘pride’? What a joke. I had been so upbeat and happy with the CPAC convention up until I saw this video. Thanks very much to Mr. Sorba for opening my eyes to this hidden sideshow.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Probably because it doesn’t make sense. Its not like Rome discovered homosexuality around 300 A.D. I blame general laziness and corruption.

Speedwagon82 on February 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Actually, it’s about the time they embraced Christianity. However, neither religion nor gay s3x caused Rome’s downfall. You point to some more proximate causes.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:33 PM

So then you don’t march around town proclaiming your proudness to engage in anal sex? Nor your right to flaunt your love of it before my children?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM

And someone WILL get sick eventually.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:38 PM

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Actually when homosexuality came into vogue it was in the middle of horrendous Christian persecution. By the time Rome embraced Christianity under Constantine in the first half of the fourth century I believe, Rome was already half in the bag.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM

I will vote on cultural issues first, everything else second. This whiny post does not convince me otherwise. As long as you have people like Kevin Jennings representing the gay community, everyone should be concerned.

Rose on February 20, 2010 at 3:43 PM

That gets right to the point Laura and I have been making…up until recently in our country’s history, it was understood that religious conscience wasn’t to be tampered with by the State. You don’t agree; religious conscience has to argue against homosexuality with some utilitarian argument, or by default, sexual identity must win out. That’s a wild overthrow of 300 years of religious tolerance.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Until recently, what is now regarded as conservative Christianity was practiced by practically everybody in this country who wasn’t Jewish or something. Since then, we have had a lot of immigration from countries full of people who are of completely different faiths and traditions. Why should a law mandating hijab in one city, or allowing suttee in another not be allowed?

And if we were going to start thinking in terms of religious freedom versus disestablishment for other religions, should Christianity be immune?

In short, was it the abrogation of a common understanding of religion and the law that has happened, or was it religious homogeneity?

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Anyway I gotta go spend the money I’m saving by not donating to CPAC. I’m sure some rich white homo will make up for it with a large contribution.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM

So then you don’t march around town proclaiming your proudness to engage in anal sex? Nor your right to flaunt your love of it before my children?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I am married to a man, and most folks really don’t care how I like it in the sack. You can look at the two most normal-looking guys out on a date, and is that not “marching around town proclaiming their proudness to engage on anal sex?”

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Uh, duh, maybe because that’s what we were founded upon and it’s made us the greatest nation in history? No other nation was ever founded on such a strong moral foundation which in turn was founded upon the Christian ethic. Of course all the fools will deny this truth because they absolutely have to regardless of fact.
Have you looked at other societies built upon other philosophies lately? They are sooo tolerant. As much as I detest homosexuality, I’m still content to exist with a don’t ask don’t tell situation which is how our great though imperfect society has historically dealt with it.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Uh, forget it.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM

cjk

FYI, your obsession of both gay and anal sex reads as uber creepy.

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

peakup on February 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM

You’re wrong. Anywhere and anytime homos get any ground they exploit it to the maximum. How long before it will be illegal to proudly proclaim that homosexuality is a perverse disgusting and despicable sin?

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Has not one thing in this world to do with government, not anything to do with proclaiming any speech is illegal and not one thing to do with any un-hypocritical Constitutional representative political party.

Speakup on February 20, 2010 at 4:33 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

In relevance to the topic at hand, the difference is between conservatives shaping public policy, or liberals shaping it. When you spurn potential voters, like gays, you’re hurting the cause of conservative ideals, for the sake of a single, arbitrary issue based on your infantile reaction to something nobody makes you watch or take part in.

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM

I find the obsession people like cjk have with homosexuality and the need for government to validate their view on it a much bigger antithesis to my conservative values and political philosophy than anything GOProud has done or said. I’m so glad that in the circles I travel in cjk would be seen as the “freak” and not GOProud.

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

GOProud and other homosexual activist groups seek federal government validation and support of voluntary sexual behavior that both spreads disease and undermines the best reproductive basis for society (heterosexual monogamy). How is it “conservative” to help them attain these goals?

OhioCoastie on February 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM

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

A little known fact about marriage…

In the US, when you are married in a “church wedding,” there’s always the line about “and now, by the power vested in me by the state of…”

With that line, the priest/rabbi/minister is assuming a power held by the state, (asserted in the issuance of a marriage license.

So, there really are two components: the civil (license, formal pronouncement under a power granted by the state,) and the religious.

One other tidbit; in MA, that “power” can be “vested” in any person (not just the priest/rabbi/minister,) who meets certain state requirements.

massrighty on February 20, 2010 at 5:33 PM

I find the obsession people like cjk have with homosexuality and the need for government to validate their view on it a much bigger antithesis to my conservative values and political philosophy than anything GOProud has done or said.

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Exactly, the problem isn’t that the SoCons are just concerned about gays being apart of the GOP, they’re also concerned that the political leaders of the GOP must be of the “right” faith.

My point is that if SoCons have hangups about what religion the Presidential candidate belongs to, you guys have far more serious issues than just the reasonable objection to the politicization and legitimization of sexual behaviors.

And that is what makes everyone turned off to the SoCon wing of the Republican party.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 5:35 PM

With that line, the priest/rabbi/minister is assuming a power held by the state, (asserted in the issuance of a marriage license.

Exactly. That’s what I’d like to eliminate. Let the legal union be conducted entirely by the state; let the spiritual union be conducted entirely by the church. This will not resolve all the legal problems arising from gay rights issues, but I think it’s a good idea in any event.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 5:37 PM

How is it “conservative” to help them attain these goals?

OhioCoastie on February 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM

By opposing NOM and keeping the federal government out of the issue. Marriage should be handled by the states. The federal government can balance the budget and catch bin Laden.

dedalus on February 20, 2010 at 5:38 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

Absolutely correct. Their “gay agenda” has nothing to do with the main issues we face. Their repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell”, support of unconsitutional “hate crimes” legislation and their unequal treatment preferences for gay businesses is really nothing to do with either our immediate problems, nor are they election-winning strategies. It’s all down-side.

virgo on February 20, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 5:37 PM

I made my point less clearly than I should have; in MA, (and I assume, in other states,) you can separate them, either into different “ceremonies,” or by having the power vested in someone other than the priest, and announced at the ceremony. In this way, your “civil marriage” can be “sanctifies” by a religious ceremony.

BTW, thanks for your thoughtful (and thought-provoking) posts on this issue, and on others.

Most of us come here to agree, and disagree, without shouting, or hating.

You’re an example of what’s good here.

massrighty on February 20, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Exactly, the problem isn’t that the SoCons are just concerned about gays being apart of the GOP, they’re also concerned that the political leaders of the GOP must be of the “right” faith.

My point is that if SoCons have hangups about what religion the Presidential candidate belongs to, you guys have far more serious issues than just the reasonable objection to the politicization and legitimization of sexual behaviors.

And that is what makes everyone turned off to the SoCon wing of the Republican party.

Conservative Samizdat on February 20, 2010 at 5:35 PM

I don’t think you can put that on “social conservatism”. That’s Huckabee supporters turning on Romney.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM

In relevance to the topic at hand, the difference is between conservatives shaping public policy, or liberals shaping it. When you spurn potential voters, like gays, you’re hurting the cause of conservative ideals, for the sake of a single, arbitrary issue based on your infantile reaction to something nobody makes you watch or take part in.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Libertarians aren’t conservatives and conservatives aren’t libertarians. Maybe conservatives and libertarians agree on some things but they are distinct groups. It’s very silly for you to argue we betray “conservatism” because we don’t CHANGE to adopt something conservatism has explicitly have opposed for nearly thirty years– identity politics and surrender on social issues.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Ampersand on February 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

FYI I’m not obsessed with it I’m disgusted by it moron. It sounds like you approve of it weirdo.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:36 PM

MadisonConservative on February 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM

UH, no you’re the one alienating conservative voters en masse.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Ampersand sounds like a member of Gopride. LOL

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:40 PM

It’s always funny how when someone points out the true disgusting, and filthy aspects of homos they always get attacked as being obsessed. I guess I am obsessed with my children’s welfare.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:41 PM

If the homos could just keep their despicable perversions in the closet everything would be okay, but they want social approval and they’re never ever going to get that from people like myself who hold to Christian morality. IDON’T WANT THEM AROUND MY FAMILY, I DON’T WANT TO BE FORCED TO RENT TO THEM, IDON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH THEM. Isn’t that my right? They behave in a filty, disease ridden, and stinking(pun intended) fashion.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:48 PM

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Mr. Phelps? Is that you?

Good grief, I hope you’re a liberal troll because that is exactly how they caricature Christians. But in the event you are not: You don’t get to define “Christian morality” for the rest of us, and you definitely don’t define it for me. I have been a Christian for more than twenty years, gone to churches where members number in the thousands, and lived in cities up and down the east coast. I have never, NOT ONCE, met any Christian who says the kind of thing you just wrote. I’m disgusted by it. I advocate for your right to live as you please and think what you want, so that I can maintain my own rights. Not because the kind of thing you just wrote doesn’t make me sick. Because it does.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Sorry but yes I’m completely disgusted by their behavior and not ashamed to say so. Sorry you’re so much better than I am.
You are the one with crocked morality, your children should have to deal with a fag scout master and then maybe you righteous ones will wake up.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 7:10 PM

I gotta go, but it’s real sad to see such acceptance of sin from those who claim to be Christians.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 7:11 PM

You are the one with crocked morality, your children should have to deal with a fag scout master and then maybe you righteous ones will wake up.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Don’t be insane!

They’re going to ban the Boy Scouts for religious discrimination and sexual bigotry. As the Founders intended. 1/2 sarc

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 7:16 PM

I’m a devout Christian, so I believe in the sanctity of marriage. Politically, I’m against court decrees on redefining marriage and applaud the people’s rollback of that in state after state. And of course, Boy Scouts as an association should be able to define and staff their organization as they determine.

HOWEVER,
1) the Ryan Sorba statement was rude, out-of-order, and inflammatory – in short hateful and not “Christian”

2)CPAC is not a religious organization and neither is it a organization to mentor youth. As a political organization, it should be big-tent on lifestyle issues and any disagreement on that should have been handled elsewhere than on the floor.

3) Regardless of our stands on protecting the definitions of marriage and what institutions should determine that, homosexuals have every right to participate as citizens and also be part of conservative activist organizations.

robertb on February 20, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Conservatives are not libertarians. The Gaying of America is something of a moral crisis and not simply a matter of individual choice with ramifications limited to those who lead a homosexual life.

There’s a huge difference between supporting complete tolerance of individuals engaged in immoral or aberrant lifestyles (which I do) and supporting or even accepting their political agenda and its goals of normalizing and promoting said lifestyle (which I absolutely DO NOT).

DrZin on February 20, 2010 at 8:32 PM

So how much are conservatives supposed to sell out to get the support of the .5% of the population that is both gay any remotely likely to vote conservative?

Gay marriage and the repeal of DADT are not acceptable. I don’t see why the rest of us have to drink the gay rights cool-aid just because a few “leaders” do. If people who advocate gay marriages on Navy ships, and having armed forces day look like the “up your alley” event, then the are not conservatives, and the RINOs letting them in the tent are the same pinheads who made it possible for McCain to get the nomination and made it possible for Obama to get the white house. Learn already.

Spartacus on February 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Laura,
You aren’t the first one with that solution. That is how the USSR did it. They did to intentionally marginalize the role of religion in society.

So you think you are smarter than Stalin?

Spartacus on February 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Spartacus on February 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM

I’m only saying this because I care – there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Laura on February 20, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Absolutely brilliant. I hope the SoCons are paying close attention. This is a defining moment. If the SoCons want to rock the boat and try to wrest control of the Conservative back away from the more libertarian minded folk, they’d better be prepared for a fight.

It’s time to give up the hate, folks. If you’re so committed to bashing and ostracizing those who are different, then you need to just pack it up and go home. I’d rather be a minority power in a declining country, knowing that I have integrity in my beliefs and principals, than have the bigotry of your beliefs tainting the world. Go ahead and live your lives. Just leave us alone.

nukemhill on February 20, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Hey, nukemhill, we who oppose the gay activists are not bashing/ostracizing/hating anybody. We simply refuse to go along with their agenda. They want federal government support & approval of their voluntary sexual behavior (which spreads disease and undermines society). They will use lawsuits and criminal prosecutions to achieve their goals if they can.

I’m willing to tolerate private homosexual behavior, in the sense that I’ll put up with it even though I disapprove. However, I refuse to accept, teach, celebrate or subsidize it. Using the federal government to force me to do so is neither libertarian nor conservative.

Understand?

OhioCoastie on February 20, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Here’s some of that dreaded politically incorrect conservatism.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society — whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society-no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

– Russell Kirk

When the federal government advocates/celebrates/supports homosexual behavior, it attacks that moral order Kirk was talking about.

OhioCoastie on February 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Barring a sea-change in this country (which, if it is to come, will come from a Christian Revival, and from no other source), I fear the lethal boiling point cannot be far off.

sanantonian on February 20, 2010 at 2:27 PM

If this country is to change for the better, it will come from a religious revival in which people of all faiths actually live up to the precepts they were taught.

All I really expect is people to be the BEST Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Hindu or Atheist or whatever your faith is.

If all people lived up to the precepts of their faiths, it would make the world 95% better.

I don’t think you can put that on “social conservatism”. That’s Huckabee supporters turning on Romney.

Chris_Balsz on February 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I can. Its not a Huckabee or a Sarah Palin thing. There is a segment of SoCons who will not accept a candidate of another faith under any conditions.

If Sarah Palin was a Buddhist, she wouldn’t get nearly the rabid support from SoCons as she does because she’s a Christian.

They would shun her as they would with Romney.

And you know it.

Conservative Samizdat on February 21, 2010 at 1:43 AM

Russell Kirk affirms what I was talking about. If everyone lived up to the moral precepts as taught by their faith (whatever faith that might be), it will be a good society.

Conservative Samizdat on February 21, 2010 at 1:45 AM

Ampersand sounds like a member of Gopride. LOL

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:40 PM

I’m happy you think I sound like that. I’d be ashamed to sound like you. And yes, you seem obsessed. How many posts have you made on this subject? I’ve never even noticed you posting here before… but talk about butt sex and damn you get perky. You are a cliché.

Ampersand on February 21, 2010 at 2:55 AM

I can. Its not a Huckabee or a Sarah Palin thing. There is a segment of SoCons who will not accept a candidate of another faith under any conditions.

If Sarah Palin was a Buddhist, she wouldn’t get nearly the rabid support from SoCons as she does because she’s a Christian.

They would shun her as they would with Romney.

And you know it.

Conservative Samizdat on February 21, 2010 at 1:43 AM

Romney could convert to Methodism tomorrow and he’d still get nailed for trusting in big government.

Anyhow who is protesting Mormon tabernacles these days, “socons” or the enlightened gay power movement?

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 3:17 AM

In short, was it the abrogation of a common understanding of religion and the law that has happened, or was it religious homogeneity?

Sekhmet on February 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM

We’ve never had religious homogeneity in this country. That’s why we had a strong tradition of tolerance. Which you’re throwing out the window by saying, “OK before we consider whether you can oppose homosexuality, you need to make utilitarian arguments for it; your religious traditions have no weight”.

Politically, I’m against court decrees on redefining marriage and applaud the people’s rollback of that in state after state. And of course, Boy Scouts as an association should be able to define and staff their organization as they determine.

There is no “of course” about it. New Jersey has already ruled they must take atheists, for instance; and under the Clinton Admin, Secy of Interior Bruce Babbit sought to limit their access to National Parks because of their self-determination as indifferent to homosexuality. Your basic presumptions are threatened by a hostile government. Choosing a government that is not hostile requires political coordination. Political coordination requires lobbying, campaigning and other activities at things like CPAC.

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 3:25 AM

Absolutely brilliant. I hope the SoCons are paying close attention. This is a defining moment. If the SoCons want to rock the boat and try to wrest control of the Conservative back away from the more libertarian minded folk, they’d better be prepared for a fight.

When was the fight you won to take control in the first place?

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 3:27 AM

For those moved to demand laws against homosexuals and a “proper” pariah status for them, “Any government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it all away.”

On a small business person view if the situation, if I am looking for the best fosset weebler I can find for tbe money I can afford to pay, should I disqualify a gay person simply because he or she is gay? Some other small company will hire the person and eat my lunch. I’d rather eat their lunch, thank you. Discrimination at any level beyond “does the job better than somebody else” simply does not make sense.

As such, given that the job is reduce the size of the government to the smallest size capable of keeping this country moving, I welcome gays, straights, and even fosset weeblers who agree with me. They are not the enemy. The Marxist-communist-progressive-liberal-progressive-liberals are the enemy.

Let’s keep our eyes on the ball, gang.

{^_^}

herself on February 21, 2010 at 4:07 AM

Isn’t that my right? They behave in a filty, disease ridden, and stinking(pun intended) fashion.

cjk on February 20, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Yes, bigotry is a right.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 4:20 AM

Well, so much for 2012, and 2010 for that matter. If any proof were needed that CPAC is a BAG OF ASS, it’s been provided in some of the more recent threads here. To wit:

1. Glenn Beck. Why is this man(child) being given a public forum to speak to a roomful of supposed adults? Is Rush in the hospital again? Millions of women in full-on PMS rage are more rational and stable than this guy is on the night of the new moon.

2. Ron Paul. Anti-semite, nativist crank, Pat Buchanan’s stand-in, whatever. DIAF.

3. GOProud, GOPoke, GOPervs, etc. Hard to know exactly whether these reps of a tiny sliver of a tiny minority outnumber the Paulbots or not. Even harder to know is what great gains at the ballot box will be made by catering to a few thousand people from a group whose number one priority is its identity politics, and the large majority of whom will always vote Democrat.

The very fact that CPAC attracts any attention at all from people who identify as conservative is proof of how berift we are of leaders who can articulate our principles and values.

Ed Snyder on February 21, 2010 at 4:23 AM

OhioCoastie on February 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Good stuff. Love the Kirk quote.

JiangxiDad on February 21, 2010 at 8:00 AM

Ed Snyder on February 21, 2010 at 4:23 AM

There’s nothing wrong with CPAC itself. The problem lies with the audience.

Dark-Star on February 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM

The very fact that CPAC attracts any attention at all from people who identify as conservative is proof of how berift we are of leaders who can articulate our principles and values.

Ed Snyder on February 21, 2010 at 4:23 AM

What have we got?

A wartime military half the size of Reagan’s peacetime DoD, that can’t beat Afghanistan unless the Afghans go all in for us;

A GOP eager to adopt a Roadmap for “health and retirement security” with tax credits to every American, subsidies to business, and guarantees of investment accounts (guaranteeing the rate of return? or the final balance? or the highest balance? I’m guess the answer is “Yes”)–to reduce the debt(??!);

guarantees the Great Society entitlements are here forever- the buying power of the dollar is just some egghead concern;

total surrender to hedonism and secular humanism, with an apology– with the sop that we lose in 50 states, not to one federal entity;

Does any of that jibe with the Reagan Coalition agenda?

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM

After reviewing the other thread, extensively, and also this one, I want to note some things:

1. Several people have noted that this “gay” organization has little to do with conservatism, and mostly has to do with promoting a gay agenda, but it seems they have been mostly ignored.

2. Many who support “gay rights,” apparently in their eagerness to show their “tolerance” are also ignoring the gay agenda, which consists of Kevin Jennings and his ilk indoctrinating school children with “gay pride” crap, thereby undermining MY RIGHT and the right of other parents who condemn gay behavior based on biblical principles by portraying us as “bigots” and “haters”

3. Like a few others, after seeing some of the dishonesty he spewed on the other thread, I am appalled that this “repurblican” character has been given a place of prominence on this site to promote his twisted brand of conservavism. However, it’s nothing new for HotAir, so I guess I shoulnd’t be surprised.

The gay agenda affects my family and all of society. It’s much more than people just wanting to be left alone in their bedrooms. Those who see the issue that way are BLIND to their agenda. Maybe have pointed that out. Kudos to you, too!

In conclusion, kudos to all of you who have the guts to stand up for what is right, which is the acceptance of the “equal rights” of gays but NOT the affirmation of their sinful behavior, through the promotion of “special” privileges for them, the latter of which is apparently what some so-called conservatives are caving in to.

JannyMae on February 21, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Does any of that jibe with the Reagan Coalition agenda?

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Not from where I sit it doesn’t Chris. Which is why I am so discouraged about Ed Morrissey expecting us all to eat this shit sammich that right now I don’t plan to vote at all.

Ed Snyder on February 21, 2010 at 2:44 PM

There’s nothing wrong with CPAC itself. The problem lies with the audience.

Dark-Star on February 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM

That works, partly, ICO the Paultards, though shunning would take care of that. But the welcoming of the GOPerv buttsecksers is CPACs epic FAIL all the way. Which makes me think that they put up with the Paultards because they’re more interested in money and power than they are in upholding true conservative principles.

Ed Snyder on February 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Mr. Ed for all you know Sarah Palin is the biggest anal sex afficionado in our whole little country. Maybe Sarah and Lila Rose both.

You just never know.

happyfeet on February 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Meet Ryan Sorba.

Sorba the ‘Eek’?

Sorba the Fiqh?

RD on February 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM

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

ScottyDog on February 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Decent Americans know that the sexual perversion so prevalent in American society today is one of the leading causes of the downfall, the degradation of our society, of our country….

ScottyDog on February 21, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Yeah, this is totally the reason the government bailed out GM and dumped nearly a trillion dollars on pet projects, contributing to an ever-compounding debt-spiral that the current President is disinterested in reversing. Totally see what you mean.

Wait, what?

Repurblican on February 21, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4