CPAC straw poll: Just one percent list stopping gay marriage as a top priority

posted at 3:35 pm on February 21, 2010 by Allahpundit

A nugget mined from the PDF of the full results. This does jibe with the gay-friendly-ish vibe to this year’s proceedings, but how seriously should we take a poll that was won by, um, Ron Paul and whose results were not only booed by the crowd but belittled by CPAC spokesmen who touted the booing to the media?

abortion

That’s a big menu and the winner was a fait accompli thanks to The One’s agenda and tea-party fee-vah, but still. Only 16 percent had abortion, gay marriage, or “promoting traditional values” as either of their top two priorities? Granted, students comprised 48 percent of the sample — how else could Paul have won? — but that might be less significant as evidence that the poll’s an outlier than as evidence that it may not be such an outlier a few years from now. (More than half the votes cast in the poll were by those 25 years old or younger.)

This is weird too:

smallgovt

Again, with conservatives tilting libertarian and Beck the keynote speaker, the winner was inevitable, but note how they phrased the foreign-policy option. Secure America’s safety … “regardless of the cost or the size of government”? I’m surprised they got even seven percent for that proposition. Why no similarly scary caveat on the individual freedom option, e.g., “regardless of whether reducing unemployment benefits will leave millions of people to starve“? Who wrote these questions, Lew Rockwell?

Exit question: 53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?


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

If nobody cares, then why be against gay marriage, or repealing DADT?

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I’ve been waiting a long time to see you throw it up there. I knew you’d say it eventually.

Incrementalism.

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM

This is worthless. Just because stopping gay marriage is not a top priority doesn’t mean it’s not a priority at all.

Darth Executor on February 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM

It’s near the bottom, as you can see. Unless you’d like to redefine “priority”.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Libertarians are lefties.

Uhhh…kay.

Their only rule is “I want.”

boko fittleworth on February 21, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Hm. Individuality. I thought that was conservatism.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM

The “Paulistinians” are a strange breed. They’ve tried to infiltrate the Tea Party movement. For the most part they’re harmless, but a few of them are complete nut jobs. Oh, and they’re famous for spamming polls.

Actually, Ron Paul supporters had the first Tea Party back in 2007 before they became popular last year.

Ron Paul 2012!!
The only true conservative who adheres to the principles of our founding fathers.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I’ve been waiting a long time to see you throw it up there. I knew you’d say it eventually.

Incrementalism.

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM

It was part of a question aimed at those who say “who cares”…I’m sure you’re aware that my position on DADT has always been to leave it up to the commanders to decide. Of course, guys like Mullen and McChrystal are for it’s repeal…and it doesn’t get higher up in command than them.

PS Hope you’re well, always a pleasure to hear from you.

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Ron Paul 2012!!
The only true conservative who adheres to the principles of our founding fathers.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Which founding father espoused huge earmarking and anti-Semitism, exactly?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Hm. Individuality. I thought that was conservatism.

MadisonConservative

Yeah, funny how that works with them. You would think the individual being in charge of their own lives and living according to their own values, without the government having to tell you how to live, would be considered Conservative and the American way, but not to them.

The government not getting into the legislating morality business, does not keep anyone from living a moral life. And if someone needs government morality legislation in order to live a “moral” life, then one is not really all that moral anyways.

There are still states where heterosexual oral sex is against the law, as is homebrewing of wine and beer. If you think oral sex should be illegal, then dont do it. If you think home brewing of beer and wine should be illegal, then do not do it. But do you reaally need to have morality laws against it?

firepilot on February 21, 2010 at 5:57 PM

It’s near the bottom, as you can see. Unless you’d like to redefine “priority”.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Food didn’t even make the list so let’s starve everyone! Oxygen didn’t even make the list so let’s suffocate everyone!

Buddahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Unless you’d like to redefine “priority”.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM

No need to redefine it:

pri·or·i·ty   [prahy-awr-i-tee, -or-] Show IPA noun,plural-ties for 2–4.
1. the state or quality of being earlier in time, occurrence, etc.
2. the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.; precedence.
3. the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, services, facilities, etc., esp. during a shortage.
4. something given special attention.

The fact that the social values which are derived from Judeo-Christian traditions are not in the top priorities for political action does not diminish their importance to those who hold them. Nor does this arbitrary series of questions necessarily reflect upon their importance even to the CPAC voters, whatever their representative value to all American citizens might hold, and I doubt it holds much.

I love the first two positions and would certainly have chosen them as one and two myself. But I also agree with you, MC, that the order of priority seems to greatly favor individual liberty and reduced intrusion and interference from the Federal government over all other general philosophies, and that this does not suggest widespread support for restrictive social values except where we see the government promoting those aberrant lifestyles (which many of us do).

Jaibones on February 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Food didn’t even make the list so let’s starve everyone! Oxygen didn’t even make the list so let’s suffocate everyone!

Buddahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Neither did stopping pedophilia, I guess conservatives love pedophiles!

Don’t deflect with such a childish debating tactic. Of the listed options, gay marriage finished nearly dead last.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 21, 2010 at 6:00 PM

The only true conservative who adheres to the principles of our founding fathers.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Didn’t the founding fathers back a military intervention against a Muslim power, the Barbary pirates?

Didn’t they sign an entangling alliance with France in 1778?

Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . .

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Don’t deflect with such a childish debating tactic. Of the listed options, gay marriage finished nearly dead last.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 21, 2010

Actually, what’s childish is the idea that because something finished last in a poll of people’s top priorities, that therefore they dont care about the issue.

Childish AND illogical. One does not follow from the other.

Actually Buddahpundits point was much better and much more grown up than yours — that there are hundreds, or even thousands of issues that didn’t even make it on the list. Where is the poll question about public transit? Where is the poll question about the environment? etc, etc.

The ONLY thing this poll established is how many people view gay marriage as THE most important issue. Not how many people view it as an important issue

Unless you truly are so childish as to propose that people only care about one issue.

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Ron Paul is to young single Gen X males what Obama is to young single Gen X females. Both are harmful.

I do not, and have NEVER trusted the youth with voting.

I thought that since before I turned 18.

Voting age should be raised back to 21 years, and even then people are not adults.

scotash on February 21, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Don’t deflect with such a childish debating tactic. Of the listed options, gay marriage finished nearly dead last.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 21, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Your argument is a fallacy. If they had included questions about eating food, breathing oxygen, stopping cap and trade, locking up pedophiles, etc., those would have scored about 1% also but that doesn’t mean conservatives don’t care about those things.

Buddahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 6:13 PM

scotash on February 21, 2010 at 6:11 PM

They need to have lived on their own for a few years (NOT college/university) before they start to understand how life really works.

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Your argument is a fallacy. If they had included questions about eating food, breathing oxygen, stopping cap and trade, locking up pedophiles, etc., those would have scored about 1% also but that doesn’t mean conservatives don’t care about those things.

Buddahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 6:13 PM

I highly doubt “breathing oxygen” would finish as low as you assume. On the other hand, we know where gay marriage finished.

It’s one poll, but I bet if you polled all of HA, the results would be similar. It simply isn’t a high priority.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 21, 2010 at 6:15 PM

The ONLY thing this poll established is how many people view gay marriage as THE most important issue. Not how many people view it as an important issue

Well, it actually established how many people at CPAC who responded to the poll thought “Stopping Gay Marriage” was a #1 priority (0%) and how many thought it was a #2 priority (1%).

It is not inconsistent with the data to suggest that a majority of respondents might have thought “Stopping Gay Marriage” was a #3 or lower priority.

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Unless you truly are so childish as to propose that people only care about one issue.

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Poll everyone at HA if you wish. Gay marriage isn’t a high priority right now, and hasn’t been for a long time. If you want to hitch your wagon to that, go ahead; no one here will stop you. We’ll be focusing on the more important issues while you tilt at windmills.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 21, 2010 at 6:17 PM

note how they phrased the foreign-policy option. Secure America’s safety … “regardless of the cost or the size of government”? I’m surprised they got even seven percent for that proposition.

I’m guessing the straw poll for nominee was along the lines of: “Do you support Ron Paul and trutherism, or are you an idiot?”

Vashta.Nerada on February 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Sorry social liberals, but…

If I own stock in Ford…

And I hear they took a poll at their shareholder’s meeting, and most of the directors prefer to drive a Honda Civic…

I’m not going to become pro-Civic.

I’m gonna dump Ford!

Here’s a better indicator–ya couldn’t hold one gay-pride rally without throwing somebody off stage. That’s what you’re building.

We are all Sorba now. We have all been TOLD we really support the social-liberal pig-in-a-poke, hurrah.

NUTS! We’re square, we’re here, we’re staying! Get used to it.

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 6:25 PM

How can Social Conservaties justify legislating their social prerogatives without rejecting Conservative limited-government principles?

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM

How can Social Conservaties justify legislating their social prerogatives without rejecting Conservative limited-government principles?

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM

They don’t! It is the liberals who are pushing government intervention for every victimization group under the sun.

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM

We are all Sorba now. We have all been TOLD we really support the social-liberal pig-in-a-poke, hurrah.
Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 6:25 PM

I wonder how much Sorbas rant influenced the responses?

Itchee Dryback on February 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

The national security option was unfair. It should have said “regardless of the lives lost, cost, size of government, loss of U.S. sovereignty, and infringement of domestic liberties in our own country.

The Dean on February 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I’m sure you’re aware that my position on DADT has always been to leave it up to the commanders to decide.

No, and based on my comment I can’t imagine why you’d think that. And what commanders? Individual unit commanders?

Of course, guys like Mullen and McChrystal are for it’s repeal…and it doesn’t get higher up in command than them.

McChystal said in Dec 09 that he supports DADT, so, I’m not sure where you got that. Mullen supported DADT as late as May 08. And that’s one guy. Gen Sanchez said repealing DADT “would be a disaster”.

PS Hope you’re well, always a pleasure to hear from you.

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Don’t patronize me. It’s not a pleasure to hear from me because I can’t think of a thing I agree with you on. I remember when you said the term didn’t matter and you’d be accepting of civil union status if it ensured complete rights under the law. Then you said anything less than allowing it to be called marriage would be unacceptable and how could anyone in Republican Party deny that to loyal members. (Paraphrasing) Now DADT, what about you is Conservative?

Jetboy, I find you near reprehensible, not because you’re gay but because you are disingenuous and deceitful. You guys almost had me there for a while, but your behavior over Prop 8 and your push to repeal something that would be a logistical nightmare for the military has me rethinking all of it.

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 6:42 PM

How can Social Conservaties justify legislating their social prerogatives without rejecting Conservative limited-government principles?

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Most of the gay marriage advocates want the federal government to take away the right of the states to make their own marriage laws. Do you think it’s a limited government principle to cede that right to the fed gov?

Buddahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 6:42 PM

We are all Sorba now.

No we are absolutely not. Speak for yourself.

Sorba does not just oppose gay marriage, his hostility and rude behavior show he clearly has animus towards gays. (probably dealing with his own issues) I think the reaction to him made it clear that most conservatives do not have animus towards gays or think they should be ostracized, even while they still oppose gay marriage.

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Sorba does not just oppose gay marriage, his hostility and rude behavior show he clearly has animus towards gays. (probably dealing with his own issues) I think the reaction to him made it clear that most conservatives do not have animus towards gays or think they should be ostracized, even while they still oppose gay marriage.

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Is that standard now? Are you required to insinuate the opposing POV is gay?

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 6:54 PM

How can “Reducing the size of federal government” be 52% and
“Restoring honesty to government” be 6%? Isn’t one pretty much connected to the other?

That seems odd imo, not to mention the “Restoring” part.

Itchee Dryback on February 21, 2010 at 6:55 PM

How can Social Conservaties justify legislating their social prerogatives without rejecting Conservative limited-government principles?

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Since social liberals legislate or adjucate government promotion of, government protection for, and goverment repression of “hate speech” against their social liberal agenda, the answer is contrary legislation.

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 6:58 PM

CPAC represent young Republicans or young conservatives.

They are so not interested in the social agenda.

Neither am I.

AnninCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:59 PM

No we are absolutely not. Speak for yourself.

Yes you are. You were told what you think. How will you answer? “Yes!”? Silence? “Hell No!”?

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 7:00 PM

It’s near the bottom, as you can see. Unless you’d like to redefine “priority”.

MadisonConservative on February 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Maybe you’d like to “redefine” Christianity?

Good luck with that.

My guess is you’ll finish near the bottom as well. Dress light.

David2.0 on February 21, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I misquoted Sanchezs position on DADT.

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 7:07 PM

CPAC represent young Republicans or young conservatives.

They are so not interested in the social agenda.

Neither am I.

AnninCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Yep, CPAC was made up of people just like you.

I used to think that comments from people like you

were making HA nearly unreadable. But in fact they help

make it a must read. Where else to find so many diamonds

amongst the shit?

JiangxiDad on February 21, 2010 at 7:07 PM

CPAC represent young Republicans or young conservatives.

They are so not interested in the social agenda.

Neither am I.

AnninCA on February 21, 2010 at 6:59 PM

One European style social democracy coming your way!

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 7:10 PM

My niece asked me once if I was for or against gay marriage. My answer was that I could not be for or against something that cannot exist. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Not now, not ever. If two people wish to draw up a contract between each other, that’s fine. But don’t call it a marriage. What two people do behind closed doors is their business but when they ask for my approval, as in sanctioned marriage, the answer will always be the same.

Bill R. on February 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Reduce Government. Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let churches be in charge of marriage.

EconomicNeocon on February 21, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Don’t patronize me. It’s not a pleasure to hear from me because I can’t think of a thing I agree with you on. I remember when you said the term didn’t matter and you’d be accepting of civil union status if it ensured complete rights under the law. Then you said anything less than allowing it to be called marriage would be unacceptable and how could anyone in Republican Party deny that to loyal members. (Paraphrasing) Now DADT, what about you is Conservative?

Jetboy, I find you near reprehensible, not because you’re gay but because you are disingenuous and deceitful. You guys almost had me there for a while, but your behavior over Prop 8 and your push to repeal something that would be a logistical nightmare for the military has me rethinking all of it.

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 6:42 PM

I “patronize” no one. Trying to be nice is all, as I have only the highest respect for active military. We’d probably agree on most issues, like gun control, abortion, fiscal responsibility, hawkish on foreign policy, taxes, etc.

“Disingenuous” and “Deceitful”? Nope…I mean every word I post. If you can show how I’ve said nothing other than let the military decide about DADT, I’d love to see it. Personally, I’ve also said that I’d see no major problems if DADT were repealed.

I’ve tried be respectful towards you, and you’ve been nothing but an a-hole to me. That’s fine, I’ll get over it. But it does speak volumes to the kind of person you are.

Peace.

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Poll everyone at HA if you wish. Gay marriage isn’t a high priority right now,

Wrong. According to this poll, out of all the issues facing America, its one of the top 15 issues.

According to this poll social issues are MORE important than the economy to THIRTY percent of the base — even in this economy!

People who actually understand politics, unlike yourself, know that elections in America are won by relatively small margins by coalitions of people with divergent priorities. People who know how to win, like Ronald Reagan, President Bush and myself, know that we win by holding together the coalition of fiscal, defense AND social conservatives. And that we lose when we do not.

Proven losers, on the other hand, like John McCain tried ignoring social issues. That worked out real well for president McCain didn’t it? He lost California by something like 23 points — while traditional marriage WON, even in that very liberal state.

You see, your formula has been tried many, many times, and it has LOST every single time.

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Is that standard now? Are you required to insinuate the opposing POV is gay?

Are you serious? Can you not read? No, I made myself very clear. You just chose to completely ignore what I very clearly said.

I repeat with emphasis:

Sorba does not just oppose gay marriage, his hostility and rude behavior show he clearly has animus towards gays. (probably dealing with his own issues) I think the reaction to him made it clear that most conservatives do not have animus towards gays or think they should be ostracized, even while they still oppose gay marriage.

You see how I said that MOST conservatives are NOT like that! Even though they ALSO oppose gay marraige?

Helloo???? Anybody home in there?

American Elephant on February 21, 2010 at 7:27 PM

I’ve tried be respectful towards you, and you’ve been nothing but an a-hole to me. That’s fine, I’ll get over it. But it does speak volumes to the kind of person you are.

Peace.

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Oh sure, at every turn. Can’t even remember the last time I commented on anything you wrote. We had some great exchanges before. I suppose you might say my attitude evolved as your positions “evolved”.

You’re quite correct though about my words speaking volumes about what kind of person I am. The good and the bad, I don’t pretend to be something I’m not.

Peace to you too.

BTW, am I still not allowed to receive the Holy Communion in your church? (kidding, you don’t have to answer)

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Of course it is low on the list. When the other things that are front and center are the current economy, the current unemployment, the current impasse with Iran nuclear weapons, and gay marriage barely even in the news, it is going to be low on the priority list.

Then again, gay marriage should not even be in the running, because it should be a states issue, not a federal issue. So, the simple fact that a state issue is even registering 1% means a big deal.

astonerii on February 21, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Ron Paul 2012!!

The only true conservative who adheres to the principles of our founding fathers.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM

And who still thinks we live in The Age of Sail.

We tried glorious isolationism in 1930′s.

Got Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mao and tens of millions killed who could have been saved with some judiciously applied military strength had we invested in an effective navy and air force to put the fear of God into such predictable-as-the-rain maniacs.

Ron Paul should stick with dispensing tongue depressors.

profitsbeard on February 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

John Stossel, History is calling!!

abobo on February 21, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Then again, gay marriage should not even be in the running, because it should be a states issue, not a federal issue. So, the simple fact that a state issue is even registering 1% means a big deal.

astonerii on February 21, 2010 at 7:39 PM

I take it you would object to a national movement to order all 50 states to accept a constitutional theory requiring them to perform gay marriages?

Would you vote for candidates to federal office who also oppose that theory?

Chris_Balsz on February 21, 2010 at 7:53 PM

My Dream: teh Fred with actual fire in belly.

darii on February 21, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Fred endorsed John McCain… again.

atheling on February 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Ron Paul should stick with dispensing tongue depressors.

profitsbeard on February 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

I shouldn’t be, but lol. QOTD

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 8:00 PM

And who still thinks we live in The Age of Sail.

We tried glorious isolationism in 1930’s.

Got Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mao and tens of millions killed who could have been saved with some judiciously applied military strength had we invested in an effective navy and air force to put the fear of God into such predictable-as-the-rain maniacs.

Ron Paul should stick with dispensing tongue depressors.

How is the Taliban, a bunch of 7th century primitives adherent to a 7th century fake religion, comparable to Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan? Let them have that shithole Afghanistan. F— em! Those people want to stay slaves to a bunch of crazy fundamentalists, fine by me. It’s not my concern. If they want to rise up against the Taliban they have my support and solidarity, however, it is not worth the lives of Americans to help these primitives.
I am an active duty Marine who has served multiple combat tours and as long as we are there I say “Send me again to kill as many of these pricks as possible”. However, is it worth the money we are spending and my fellow Marines getting killed over these ignorant people? NO.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 8:02 PM

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 7:38 PM

My position on nothing has “evolved”. You just think it’s that way. Haven’t gotten any examples…

BTW, am I still not allowed to receive the Holy Communion in your church? (kidding, you don’t have to answer)

Ahh…that’s where it all started. Well, you know the Catholic Church’s position on that. And it hasn’t evolved. You got mad at me for simply stating the RCC position on that.

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Fred endorsed John McCain… again.

atheling on February 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM

You mean against Hayworth?

darii on February 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Didn’t the founding fathers back a military intervention against a Muslim power, the Barbary pirates?

Didn’t they sign an entangling alliance with France in 1778?

Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . .

The barbary pirates were attacking our merchant vessels thus committing acts of war against us. Once we defeated them, we went back to business as usual.
Al Qaeda, with the help of the Taliban, committed an act of war against us. We obliterated them in Afghanistan (as we should have) and drove out the Taliban. We pushed them from power and got our just vengeance. Now, 9 years later we are still there for what?? To make Afghanistan into a Democracy?? HAHAHA. I’ve met these people. They are not ready for a democracy. They are primitive, tribal people. If they want to be slaves to terrorists, let them. Not our problem.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Now, 9 years later we are still there for what?? To make Afghanistan into a Democracy?? HAHAHA. I’ve met these people. They are not ready for a democracy. They are primitive, tribal people. If they want to be slaves to terrorists, let them. Not our problem.

RightXBrigade on February 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM

On that point we certainly agree!

sharrukin on February 21, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Most of the gay marriage advocates want the federal government to take away the right of the states to make their own marriage laws. Do you think it’s a limited government principle to cede that right to the fed gov?

Do Social Conservatives only oppose the federal proposals? I was under the impression that they legislated their social values at the state level as well (cf. Proposition 8).

Since social liberals legislate or adjucate government promotion of, government protection for, and goverment repression of “hate speech” against their social liberal agenda, the answer is contrary legislation.

Then you’re ceding your philosophical position. Either the government is an acceptable vehicle for social change, or it isn’t.

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Either the government is an acceptable vehicle for social change, or it isn’t.

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM

So then you support prop 8?

Buddahpundit on February 21, 2010 at 8:42 PM

My position on nothing has “evolved”. You just think it’s that way. Haven’t gotten any examples…

I paraphrased your evolution of the marriage issue above. Don’t you at least concede that you were initially debating the issue from the point of view that it didn’t matter what it was called, that the important things were the couples rights derived? I am not right that in a thread some time after than (still quite some time ago), you began to change your tune about symantics and stated nothing short of labeling it marriage would be just and The Republicans would be awful for not supporting it?

BTW, am I still not allowed to receive the Holy Communion in your church? (kidding, you don’t have to answer)
Ahh…that’s where it all started. Well, you know the Catholic Church’s position on that. And it hasn’t evolved.

What is your church’s Biblical reference for banning non-Catholic Christians from receiving the Holy Communion? Here is from a site that details Holy Communion references I looked up after our first exchange.

Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of “transubstantiation” — the bread and wine actually turning into God, and therefore “adorable” (Holy Souls Book, p. 221) — is based on Jesus’ statement, “This is My Body.”
However, in John 10 Jesus said, “I am the Door…” and elsewhere he spoke figuratively (“I am the Light,” etc.) in the same way. He did not mean the door was literally being transformed into him/God, or that we should worship a door.

The true purpose of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is threefold:
1) fellowship, 1 Corinthians 10:16;
2) remembrance, 1 Corinthians 11:24; and
3) proclamation of His death till he comes again, 1 Corinthians 11:26.

Acts 20:7-11 sheds light on the informality of first-century “church services.”

1 Corinthians 10:17 says we are the bread.

1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 indicates it is still bread, not God, even after the words were spoken.

1 Corinthians 10:18 partakers

1 Corinthians 11:25 “this cup is …” (signifies)

John 6:27 decomposes

In only Matthew and Mark is it recorded that Jesus said both “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” No account is given whatsoever of the Lord’s Supper in John. Luke’s account speaks only of the bread being claimed as symbolic (the same is true of 1 Corinthians.) And Paul clearly states that he personally derived understanding/revelation of the supper from the Lord Himself.

Leviticus 12:23 The Levitical laws clearly show that drinking the blood of anything is abominable in God’s sight.

1 Corinthians 10:17 We partake of the bread, etc., not flesh. And the body spoken of is the church, not Jesus’ physical body.

John 6:47, 48, 53 This must be symbolic, not literal, because otherwise it says we can’t have life unless we receive or take the “host” (blessed bread).

John 6:54, 55, etc. In the same way that the above would eliminate salvation to those never receiving the “Holy Eucharist,” if translated literally, assurance of salvation would be possible simply for eating the “host” once (if Catholicism’s literal interpretation were applied here)!

Having once recognized these truths, we must depart from the partaking of pagan sacrifices. “Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners of the altar?” 1 Corinthians 10:18

Jesus simply meant that he alone should be our sustenance. John 6:48, 55

The next verses show the disciples’ confusion — and Jesus’ explanation. John 6:63

John 6:33, 35, 41 “I am the Bread …” NOT the Bread is me!

Jesus said He would not again drink of the fruit of the VINE until the kingdom, indicating the wine does not become his blood, but is just plain old wine.

So, I’m not sold one way or the other, but I would love to sneak into a Roman Catholic Church and receive the Holy Communion and just see if my head explodes or what. No, more seriously, I wouldn’t insult anyone’s church that way. The point is, you and your church are sold on it.

You got mad at me for simply stating the RCC position on that.

JetBoy on February 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM

I never got even slightly mad that I can’t receive the Holy Communion in your Church. I respect any church’s rules. I just thought it was the height of hypocrisy to demand your unions be called a “marriage” when it has Biblical connotations. That’s not indicative of strict adherence to the Bible. Yet you support or are at least indifferent to your churches rules on the Holy Communion, to wit, a strict adherence to something that is not even scriptural. Color me confused.

Last thing, what is your church’s position on same sex marriages?

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 9:00 PM

I would thing that the second amendment supporters would be more concerned with the fact that only 6% said that gun rights are first or second in importance.

Rose on February 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM

rather “I would think”

Rose on February 21, 2010 at 9:05 PM

These dumb CPAC polls were made of weed rather than straw.

ScottMcC on February 21, 2010 at 9:06 PM

BTW, if you don’t concede the points above about your “evolution” let me know now and I’ll start going through the vault. It’ll take a while but it’s there.

hawkdriver on February 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM

D and R congresscritters have more in common with each other than they do with us, for the most part – they live in a rarified world of electoral privilege. And as has been pointed out by many before me, too many Repubs were happy to lose on issues as long as they held onto their seats.

At least they have a way out – see the light or say goodbye.

Dems don’t even have that going for them.

Progressive Light doesn’t cut the mustard. As far as I’m concerned, the litmus test is this: any R who has big issues with Palin might as well be a Democrat.

disa on February 21, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Which founding father espoused huge earmarking and anti-Semitism, exactly?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Got any facts to back up your smear? Conjecture, hearsay, and guilt by association don’t constitute facts FYI.

alteredbeat on February 21, 2010 at 9:42 PM

I would thing that the second amendment supporters would be more concerned with the fact that only 6% said that gun rights are first or second in importance.

Rose on February 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM

You’ve got to be kidding me – with everything that’s going on, you think gun rights should be first in people’s minds??

Being multitaskers, of course my hubby and I are planning to arm up. Best to be prepared.

disa on February 21, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Sorry, Disa, I was being sarcastic. I get the impression that there are those here who think that gay marriage isn’t important to the attendees because only 1% said it was a top priority. I was just saying, if that’s a true statement than gun rights aren’t important to the attendees because only 2% say it is a top priority. The point is that just because the attendees do not rate either issue as the first or second priority, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to them as an issue.

Rose on February 21, 2010 at 9:56 PM

They are so not interested in the social agenda.

Neither am I.

AnninCA

Neither are a lot of people throughout Africa, Haiti, etc. How’s that working out for them?

xblade on February 21, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Reagan was also a western state Republican, when the social conservatives were all still Democrats. Reagan certainly did not want a nanny state of the right either, he explicitly campaigned against the Federal government getting too involved in the rights of the individual

Funny thing back in the late 70s, when California was having a referendum about the state being able to fire gays, and gay supporters from the school system.

One of the biggest voices against this, was Ronald Reagan.

“Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.”

firepilot on February 21, 2010 at 10:02 PM

The point is that just because the attendees do not rate either issue as the first or second priority, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to them as an issue.

Rose

Nor does it mean they will just sit by and let it happen without putting up a fight should it be necessary.

xblade on February 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM

So then you support prop 8?

No. I don’t think that the government should be used to coerce society into what I personally think it should look like.

CliveStaples on February 21, 2010 at 11:21 PM

I can’t sift through all this argument, but from years of experience in this debate I’m sure I know most of it. I’ve concluded a libertarian opinion politically, yet a different stance religiously.

My opinion is: “Marriage” as defined per the word and its historical definition is a spiritual union. This should be left to religion. The federal government should not define what is left to religious liberty. Each state, per states rights, should have the liberty to recognize a any particular religion’s defintion or not.

Where the gays shoot their own feet is trying to force it through the judicial branch. Marriage is a religioug matter, not a civil liberty. If they want equal rights they can call it a civil union. Thats a different argument.

Jay on February 22, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Or maybe as people get older their views will change.

I know mine have. I’ve come to appreciate much more how important social values are. I have come to conclude that traditional marriage is one of the best anti-poverty programs around. And it has nothing to do with the government handing out some kind of approval sticker for a couple’s love.

The reason marriage is so effective at fighting poverty is because traditionally it sets forth obligations that a man has towards a woman and their children. Gender is built into it. It’s intrinsic to what makes marriage effective- so removing that element will be extremely harmful to the poor. Of course, middle class, college educated America won’t be badly harmed, we don’t need strong social institutions because of our wealth and because we usually come from stable families already. But if you’re white trailer trash trying to decide whether you should marry your knocked up girlfriend, or an inner city black woman trying to decide what qualifies a man as a good partner- an institution that is highly valued and approved of by society like marriage that says “a good man marries the mother of his children, is faithful to her, and provides for their children” makes a huge difference.

Now I’m willing to form something like civil unions to provide gay couples with legal rights that they want, but marriage is far too important to society to change just to fit their needs at the expense of the rest of society.

Gay couples are not the same as mixed gender couples- for the simple reason that men and women can create children together- because surprise, men and women have intrinsic differences.

That’s why I think the gay marriage debate isn’t really gays vs straights. It’s feminists vs traditionalists, with gays serving as a proxy for the feminists.

Sackett on February 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Why should it be a #1 or #2 priority? Just because it comes in as less important than national security, the economy, and so on, doesn’t mean conservatives are suddenly pro-gay-marriage.

I agree with Mitch Berg’s blog of a few days ago, that the tea party movement has been an educational one in which a lot of one-issue conservatives have come together, read books, debated one another, and come to a better understanding of conservatism as a whole. The majority of people putting their priorities in the right order is the symptom of a healthy party.

Allah’s recent posts have been hitting a theme of “the social conservatives are getting fewer and fewer”. He still lives in the world in which economic libertarianism, national security conservatism, and “social conservatism” are three distinct and unrelated philosophies. The data shows that that world is changing.

joe_doufu on February 22, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Fighting any cultural battles through government is a mistake. Governments needn’t concern themselves with trivial sh*t like gays getting married. Drop this social engineering. You wanna socially engineer? Open a school. Don’t use our elected representation for it. If any party is going to carry any sort of constitutional banner it has to let these things go.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM

What happened to Romney’s investments at CPAC?

Keene must be thrown out of the CPAC. He couldn’t even deliver a STRAW POLL victory to his Master Romney.

So, CPAC is now infiltrated by the Paultards?

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

CPAC has lost its significance a long long time ago.

Palin/DeMint 2012!

TheAlamos on February 22, 2010 at 4:09 AM

Of course it is an important issue, why the hell does the media keep trying us conservatives what we are thinking? Idiots. Gay Marriage is an important issue, right up there and related to judicial activism, but there is a whole bucket load of crap we need to deal with atm. Just because Gay Marriage is not as important as, say, the economic crisis, does not mean we support Gay Marriage. DUH.

Daemonocracy on February 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Fighting any cultural battles through government is a mistake. Governments needn’t concern themselves with trivial sh*t like gays getting married. Drop this social engineering. You wanna socially engineer? Open a school. Don’t use our elected representation for it. If any party is going to carry any sort of constitutional banner it has to let these things go.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Go tell that to the liberals suing to ORDER it legal, then.

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Yet you support or are at least indifferent to your churches rules on the Holy Communion, to wit, a strict adherence to something that is not even scriptural. Color me confused.

The Catholic Church is quite clear that if you don’t accept it relays the oral history of the Apostolic Church, don’t consider yourself Catholic. That would also be a reason to hold back from taking the Eucharist. Also if you stole something and won’t return it. Or if you’re still upset at the boring sermon you just sat through. The doctrine isn’t “hey, keep the riffraff out of the Communion line”. Baptised and confirmed Catholics, who aren’t pure before the Lord, at that moment, shouldn’t take the Eucharist. The pastor doesn’t read names out before Mass anymore, since we got touchy-feely. But that’s still the rule, if you care about our rules.

Last thing, what is your church’s position on same sex marriages?

Marriage is union between one man and one woman.

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM

This is a poll of the talking heads.

Obviously, they didn’t ask us conservative peons what we think is important.

Oh well. This is why they’re going to lose again.

Mommynator on February 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Go tell that to the liberals suing to ORDER it legal, then.

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010

This brings up what some of us have been saying. Both the Social Liberals, and Social Conservatives, try to fight their cultural battles via legislation. A lot of us think its just not the federal governments business at all to been a part of either one of that. Just because Social Liberals do it, doesnt mean Social Conservatives have to do it either.

And could maybe just at least one of you social conservatives, realize that just because those of us who do not want the government in the cultural war business, that does not mean we are leftists or social liberals. We just do not want the government telling people how to live, and we find the idea of a cultural nanny state abhorrent, whether of the social liberals or social conservatives

firepilot on February 22, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Why should social conservatives allow social liberals to use laws to change culture without a fight? Why should we allow scum like Kevin Jennings determine what our children and grandchildren learn about sex in our public schools? It is the social liberal segment that has started this fight, not us, but we have every right to fight back.

Rose on February 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Why should social conservatives allow social liberals to use laws to change culture without a fight? Why should we allow scum like Kevin Jennings determine what our children and grandchildren learn about sex in our public schools? It is the social liberal segment that has started this fight, not us, but we have every right to fight back.

Rose

Social Liberals did it first? While I disagree with them just as much as I do social conservatives, lets not think that Social Conservatives using the law to legislate their beliefs, is anything recent. Blue laws, dry countries, cohabitation laws, prohibition, sodomy laws, etc have went on for a long time.

firepilot on February 22, 2010 at 3:06 PM

I am talking about today, here and now. This is the battle that I personally am waging. And the laws you refer to have all been overturned. So if I disagree with something are you saying that I have less rights than those who disagreed with the above laws?

Rose on February 22, 2010 at 3:27 PM

there are still many instances of those laws being out there, because of moral nanny state types who use the law to legislate their own values. Still many places there you can not buy a drink, can not make a drink and where even heterosexual oral sex was illegal until a recent Supreme Court decision

To you maybe it is about here and now, but social conservatives have a long history of silly laws to control private behavior. I just with both sides would quit it, and leave people to live their own lives.

I do not want the social liberals trying to put their social engineering crap into schools, nor do I want social conservatives/evangelicals trying to have Genesis as a part of Geology and Biology class either.

firepilot on February 22, 2010 at 4:19 PM

If you don’t want the social liberals to put their social engineering into schools than you have to fight their efforts to do so. There are many of us who feel that this fight is necessary I said nothing about Genesis. I’m talking about preventing our children from being exposed to things that are not the states’ responsibility. And these things are already happening, especially here in California. If we don’t fight, we lose.

Rose on February 22, 2010 at 4:30 PM

53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?

A little of each, I’d wager, considering that Paul didn’t get 53% of the straw poll.

Mark Jaquith on February 23, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2