In defense of gay conservatives

posted at 9:20 pm on February 23, 2010 by Doctor Zero

Bryan Fischer, host of the American Family Association’s “Focal Point” radio talk show, is very upset about Hot Air’s nose dive into the thundercloud of gay politics, and angry that it could happen with our new “Christian ownership” at Salem Communications slumped lifelessly in the pilot’s seat:

Wow. Just as soon as the “Hot Air” blog was purchased by the Christian conglomerate Salem Communications from conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, it has suddenly become an advocate for all things gay. What in the world is up with that?

For background, GOPROUD is an organization dedicated to advancing special rights for homosexual behavior, and advocates the overthrow of the Defense of Marriage Act and the overthrow of the law banning homosexual service in the military.

Not only was GOPROUD welcomed at CPAC, an event which is supposed to be the annual showcase for conservative values, the organization was allowed to sponsor the event, giving visibility and recognition to its effort to legitimize sexual deviancy.

Fischer presses his face to the passenger windows of Hot Air, and sees Green Room contributor Repurblican crouched on the wing, tearing pieces of conservative purity from the starboard engine:

A Saturday post, from Repurblican, takes one of my new heroes, Ryan Sorba of California Young Americans for Freedom, to task for making the common sense statement at CPAC that homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction. For this obviously correct observation, he was booed off the stage. And “Hot Air,” now under Christian management, has made Sorba out to be the bad guy.

Sorba showed the courage of his convictions by simply declaring the truth. Said Sorba, “Civil rights are grounded in natural rights, and natural rights are grounded in human nature…and the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction…civil rights, when they conflict with natural rights, are contrary…” At this point, his remarks were drowned out by a chorus of vitriolic, angry boos. (View video of his remarks here.)

Consequently, Sorba said, “I’d like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPRIDE (he meant “GOPROUD”) to this event.”

For speaking truth to power, “Hot Air” accused Sorba of “bombthrowing,” and said his remarks represented a “gratuitous and public…slam on homosexuals.”

The idea that Salem Communications has somehow enforced new pro-gay editorial standards on Hot Air is ridiculous. So is acting like a jerk in the name of ideological purity at CPAC. This kind of factional infighting is obviously unhelpful to overcoming the enormous challenges facing us in the next few elections. It would be tragic for the nation if we left it rolling towards the edge of the socialist cliff, while we spend our days tearing the mantle of “true conservatism” into a thousand pieces, and accusing each other of heresy. A certain degree of this conflict was inevitable, as different groups struggle for control of the resurgent Right, from David Frum squeaking that it’s not too late to reach an understanding with our progressive masters, to Bryan Fischer advising his readers to “kiss off” Hot Air because some of our contributors dared to speak up in defense of GOPROUD.

I think my own credentials as a defender of traditional marriage are in order. They can be reviewed in detail here and here. I do not hold these beliefs out of animosity toward gay people, or disrespect for committed homosexual relationships. I believe in the positive value of the marriage tradition, and I reserve the right to celebrate that value without denigrating those who don’t participate in it.

The gay-marriage movement is necessarily aggressive, because they seek a substantial change in society. I appreciate the strength of their conviction, and as long as they respect mine, we can have a civil discussion. The temptation to detonate conviction into anger is strong, and counter-productive. I’m no more impressed by Ryan Sorba’s act than I was by Perez Hilton’s.

It’s remarkable how much the focus has shifted away from social issues, in the year since I began writing for Hot Air. Carrie Prejean’s encounter with Perez Hilton was one of the hot topics back then. Now we stand in the shadow of a looming catastrophe which threatens the liberty and prosperity of our entire society. It’s not surprising to see our focus shift toward the common menace. I don’t feel traditional marriage is any less important than I did a year ago, but if GOPROUD wants to have that discussion later, after we wrestle down unsustainable government spending, and clear the danger of being thrown in jail for failure to purchase government-approved health insurance, that’s fine by me.

I hope to reach something more than a temporary truce between the factions of the Right. The assertion that we are all captives of some agenda, which we must accept in full or reject utterly, is the language of identity politics, and of totalitarianism. The Fischer criticism of Hot Air demonstrates the foolishness of assuming that every member of an identity group is party to some kind of agenda. If there’s a “Christian agenda,” then either Salem Communications or Bryan Fischer was not invited to the meetings.

We can be united in our appreciation for liberty… and this requires respect for the individual, just as the embrace of collectivism ultimately brings contempt. You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin. Rejecting gay conservatives because they disagree with me about marriage would be crawling back into the walled compound of my little tribe, and expecting them to do likewise. Each tribe would then resume shoving the wrecking ball of the State at the others, until someone gets flattened. That’s not the game conservatives, or Americans, should be playing.

It’s not going to be easy to hold the components of the Right together, especially as our ranks swell, and the dependents of State rally to its tattered banner of rage and despair. The constituencies of the Left have been fairly easy to buy off. Sometimes it was only necessary to buy their leadership off, and leave the common folk to suffer beneath failed programs they were told they have a moral duty to accept without question. No such arrangement will suffice for a conservative movement united by its rejection of the bloated and dying central government we inherited from the twentieth century… but still working to reconcile discordant visions of what should come next.

We can show each other a little grace and courtesy without abandoning our strongly-held beliefs… or at least refrain from trying to excommunicate each other. Leave the identity politics to the nitwits who look at Marco Rubio and see a coconut.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

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

The above said, I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times:

There can be no such thing as “gay marriage.” You can dress a dog in feathers and flippers and teach it to quack, but that don’t make it a duck.

Visitation / inheritance / health bennies / whatever, fine, I DON’T CARE. Take the silly “civil rights” argument off the table. (And yes, if that opens the door to health bennies for your live-in cousin or Pekinese, FINE, I DON’T CARE. The numbers are going to be too small to impact the actuarial tables.)

“Marriage” is a human institution that predates civilization, and with VERY few exceptions (those usually being for economic reasons) always and everywhere it is defined as one man, one woman. There have been kings and queens and emperors who could have redefined marriage to suit their personal proclivities, but they did not.

Just find another term, willya?

skydaddy on February 24, 2010 at 2:37 AM

We all know what a marriage is, and what it isn’t.

This is a fight for a definition in “Webster’s” or whatever.

I’m sure MB4 could find Something from Sun-Tsu about picking your battles,.etc…and he would be correct.

Get over yourselves, you holier-than-thou pricks. Honestly, the ones who preach DOWN to the rest of us are the ones who bear watching.

Don’t Swaggart me.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:04 AM

“What limitations? Every day we get our daily multiple gay marriage indoctrination.

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:48 PM”

Matters pertaining to homosexuals are part of the on going public discourse. Would you suggest that we ignore them? The posts aren’t indoctrination; that would imply that we are forced to deal with them. You control your computer’s mouse, don’t you? Anyway, we should engage the debate if only to clarify our thinking and marshall our arguments against the homosexual agenda. I see no reason for anyone to have any special rights; those enshrined in the Constitution are enough for us all. Moreover, the “marriage” of two men or two women is antithetical to the concept of marriage; it is anathema. While marriage is for companionship and pleasure of the man and the woman, it is essentially procreative in purpose to ensure the continuation of the species. The union of homosexuals is a rejection of that ethos. Does that mean we should exclude homosexual Conservatives from our company and not discuss their concerns? Of course not. It’s absurd; that assumes that they are one issue voters. They are not. We agree with them where we can, and part company where we can’t. Nevertheless, we should be vigilant lest the homosexual agenda overrun the Conservative platform. The same mushy-headed thinking that has devastated the Left is already part of the Right. Constitutional rights for all; special rights for none; marriage between one man and one woman only.

SilentWatcher on February 24, 2010 at 3:06 AM

SilentWatcher on February 24, 2010 at 3:06 AM

Nicely done. Logic is good.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:08 AM

We can be united in our appreciation for liberty… and this requires respect for the individual, just as the embrace of collectivism ultimately brings contempt. You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin. Rejecting gay conservatives because they disagree with me about marriage would be crawling back into the walled compound of my little tribe, and expecting them to do likewise. Each tribe would then resume shoving the wrecking ball of the State at the others, until someone gets flattened. That’s not the game conservatives, or Americans, should be playing.

This. ^^

+100 — Another great piece, Doc!

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2010 at 3:19 AM

Nevertheless, we should be vigilant lest the homosexual agenda overrun the Conservative platform.

Ya see what you did right there? That’s just silly.

You overran your own commentary.

Learn when to quit, and then learn to quit (while you’re slightly ahead).

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:22 AM

In my vast (meaning in my own mind) experience, when I had gay folks working “under” me, it was without exception my good luck. The two “fellows” I had under my charge were without a doubt the “hardest” working men out of the crowd. Bar none.

Maybe it was overcompensation; maybe they were just good. I would proudly put my name behind either one’s resume, because they earned it.

Don’t be so quick to judge, folks. Look at the Cheney’s.

If you don’t understand what I’m conveying, then I must be illiterate. Or stuff.

Grow the hell up, people. It’s a big, big world.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:36 AM

I agree with the posters that have said that they are for civil unions. I get so tired of the “gay community” pitching a fit because they can’t be “married.” Civil unions can almost all the same benefits. I see nothing wrong with civil unions at all. That being said, Sorba is still a dick!

NathanG on February 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Well, I agree too, but part of the reason the gay community is agitating for the right to be married is precisely because civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever do not always carry the same legal and financial protections that marriage does. FTR, I am opposed to gay marriage, or more accurately, I am opposed to the government — esp. the federal government — having a say in whether it should be legal or not. The State should not be in the marriage business, period; this is something that has traditionally been the purview of religion and should remain as such. If there are some more liberal-minded churches out there who want to marry some of their gay members, let them have at it, but it shouldn’t be the freaking law one way or the other.

I really think if civil unions can be made more substantial, gay couples might abandon the marriage argument. I have a couple of friends who are lesbians and their main complaint about civil unions has nothing to do with wanting to have a ring and a ceremony, or to adopt kids together, or whatever. They are worried about what happens if one of them gets sick and the other one is not allowed into the ICU to visit. Or if, God forbid, they have to make a decision for the other as health care POA and someone in the immediate family challenges it. Sure, they could do that anyway, but if your POA were your spouse (or the same powers as a spouse), they wouldn’t have much legal recourse. They are also concerned about what happens when one of them passes away and they have an inheritance to leave. Take a retirement account, for instance. A spouse can bequeath a 401(k) or IRA to the surviving spouse, and that surviving spouse can roll it right into his/her own plan. If you inherit from a non-spouse, you are forced to either liquidate the account over a five-year period or start taking annual contributions over the course of your own life span — therefore, you lose the benefit of tax-deferral. Of course, there are many other tax benefits to being married, all of which ought to be scrapped; even if we as a society have a vested interest in encouraging marriage, using the tax code to do it is inherently immoral IMO.

Anyway, I say all of that to say, I think there is work to be done in giving domestic partnership laws in the various states more teeth. It would seem to me that is a more practical and effective means of protecting your wealth and your rights as a couple than insisting that the rest of society change to accommodate your lifestyle.

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2010 at 3:45 AM

State’s Rights. The End.

Big Brother needs a bridle.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:48 AM

Shiite. States’ plural.

Don’t want to get the punctuation National Socialists on my ass back.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:51 AM

As a far right. catholic GAY man I just wanted to say that the insistance on getting GAY MARRIAGE is not foremost on all gay people’s minds and personally I am vehemently against it. Marriage has its origins in religion and in catholicism. it is one of the sacraments. I dont want to change that definition at all. Gays want to hijack the the word and the institution and I am against it. I would hope that some of you might consider civil unions as an alternative. We now have that inNJ. However, being a strong proponent of the 10th amendment, i respct the rights of individuals to vote on such measures.

Dan Pet on February 24, 2010 at 4:54 AM

Blake, you are making the case against yourself… thanks for that.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 1:19 AM

If a dumb hillbilly like you is offended, then I must be on the right track. So, thank you!

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 5:28 AM

As a conservative Christian, I agree with the essence of what Dr. Z has said here.

The leftists in Congress and the White House are hellbent on flushing this country down the toilet as quickly and as permanently as they possibly can. We need to fight them with every fiber of our being, and every body we can muster. We need to do whatever it takes to defeat them and their insidious goals, prevent them from doing further harm, and as soon as we’re able, begin the arduous process of repairing what damage has already been done.

This is already a near-vertical, uphill battle. Personally, the sexual preferences of others are a ways down my priority list right now.

Cylor on February 24, 2010 at 5:37 AM

It had to happen sooner or later: Doc, I respectfully disagree. To Fischer’s point about HotAir “changing” he is wrong and obviously unfamiliar with the site, but your comparison of Ryan Sorba’s comments at CPAC to Perez Hilton’s comments about Carrie Prejean is just plain nutty. Hilton made a filthy, ad hominem attack on Prejean, while Sorba used deductive reasoning that you didn’t bother trying to dispute. Nor could you.

Political correctness bullcrap.

pugwriter on February 24, 2010 at 5:56 AM

“What limitations? Every day we get our daily multiple gay marriage indoctrination.

Blake on February 23, 2010 at 10:48 PM”

Matters pertaining to homosexuals are part of the on going public discourse. Would you suggest that we ignore them?

Do you have reading comprehension problems? How can one ignore them when they are a large percentage of posts on HA every effin day?

The posts aren’t indoctrination; that would imply that we are forced to deal with them. You control your computer’s mouse, don’t you?

As you do yours – skip over my posts. And yes, the sheer number of post make them indoctrination. Every day we have multiple gay marriage/gay soldiers stories. Everybody already knows how everybody feels. The majority oppose gay marriage and the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t flaunt, don’t recruit. (Love how the ones promoting its repeal edited the author’s original slogan.) But it just keeps getting repeated. Like the phony polls. If they keep feeding people these rigged polls falsely indicating the majority support gay marriage and gay soldiers, they hope people will acquise on the subject.

Anyway, we should engage the debate if only to clarify our thinking and marshall our arguments against the homosexual agenda.

We have repeatedly. People are sick of the subject.

Does that mean we should exclude homosexual Conservatives from our company and not discuss their concerns? Of course not. It’s absurd; that assumes that they are one issue voters.

What’s absurd is your continual implication that I made arguments that I did not so you can pretend that you are refuting them. How dishonest but not unexpected of you.

The same mushy-headed thinking that has devastated the Left is already part of the Right.
SilentWatcher on February 24, 2010 at 3:06 AM

You, yourself, are a perfect example of mushy headed dishonest thinking.

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 6:03 AM

Nicely done. Logic is good.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:08 AM

Dumb hillbilly logic for a dumb hillbilly.

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 6:05 AM

If you would quit showing your ass at every opportunity, you might be taken seriously. You someetimes have good contributions here, but you overshadow them with your big-ass chip on your shoulder.

Be somebody.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 1:31 AM

Hey Cupcake,

I appreciate the fan-mail.

Cheers

The Race Card on February 24, 2010 at 6:24 AM

State’s Rights. The End.

Big Brother needs a bridle.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 3:48 AM

States’ rights is right. Being a fan of the Tenth Amendment does not preclude me from being a friend to gay men and women.

The Race Card on February 24, 2010 at 6:31 AM

Rejecting gay conservatives because they disagree with me about marriage would be crawling back into the walled compound of my little tribe, and expecting them to do likewise.

Yeah, the spirit of that is ok, but there’s something a bit off w/the delivery imo.

For example, why not “political conservative who has a same-sex attraction,” rather than “gay conservative.” All you’re missing is the hyphen. Remember Jim McGreevy’s “I’m a gay-American?” yuck.

Also, if the times demand we put our lesser differences aside, why did the “gay-conservatives” have a gay-conservatives booth at CPAC.

It’s a two-way street Doc.

JiangxiDad on February 24, 2010 at 6:58 AM

I really hate identity politics…..

adamsmith on February 24, 2010 at 7:11 AM

Dan Pet at 4:54am. You’re a good cat. I can just tell from what you’ve written…….

adamsmith on February 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM

We can be united in our appreciation for liberty… and this requires respect for the individual, just as the embrace of collectivism ultimately brings contempt. You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin. Rejecting gay conservatives because they disagree with me about marriage would be crawling back into the walled compound of my little tribe, and expecting them to do likewise. Each tribe would then resume shoving the wrecking ball of the State at the others, until someone gets flattened. That’s not the game conservatives, or Americans, should be playing

Where was the respect at CPAC for a conservative voicing an opinion while speaking at the podium?

I see, the respect is going to be all one way. Conservatives must respect the gay advocates without question. Why? Just because. It’s the new litmus test. You can’t really be conservative now unless you embrace homosexuals. But of course, these gay activists will have no respect for conservatives. I can see that already by all the nice name calling and booing.

See, this conversation is reminding me more and more like the RINO conversations we have had from time to time.
McCain calls himself a Reagan conservative. Yeah, right. We’re suppose to just accept that. And now a bunch of gay activists are calling themselves conservative, too. What a coincidence.

JellyToast on February 24, 2010 at 7:41 AM

I’ve read with great interest all of the posts here and feel compelled to add my 2¢.

As I’ve stated before, I am a conservative gay woman living in CT, where I now have the “right” to both a civil union and “marriage” with my partner of 16 years, if I so desire. We have chosen not to exercise this “right” primarily because we do not feel that we need the sanction/approval of any government entity to live the life we choose to live… and we do not want any state or federal government office having such information at its disposal. Do I sound distrustful of government? Well, I am. My life is my own business and I choose to make of it what I will by my own efforts without the “help” of government.

First and foremost, I believe in the liberty of the individual, which is the main principle of our Constitution. With that liberty comes personal responsibility and accountability, things that are becoming increasingly rare in our society. Ranking right up there with personal liberty in my book is property rights, which I believe are frighteningly in jeopardy. Some time ago I was at a party where all my gay friends were talking about the new “right” to marry in Connecticut, most of them making their plans to partake. When I told them I have no intention of doing so, but was infinitely more concerned about the Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court ruling, they all looked at me with utter disbelief. Our right to our own property is being threatened and, with it, the freedom to shape our own destiny – and they are worried about having a stupid piece of paper with the state’s certification that they’re “legally married.”

My partner and I have essentially lost all of our gay friends because of our conservative beliefs… not to mention our pistol permits. (Talk about tolerance!) This whole notion of identity politics is repulsive to me. I believe that, above all, we are individuals with our own ideas, opinions and aspirations. I refuse to be manipulated into thinking a certain way and “uniting for a cause” based on one aspect of my being. If that means that other gay people call me “self hating”, then so be it – I know that’s not the case. It is not important to me that anyone accept me because I’m gay; it is important to me to be a person of honor and character who accepts responsibility for my actions. Whether people like me or not is beyond my power to control or my inclination to care.

Well, I have a great deal more to say but I’ll wrap it up here. There’s a great website that I like to frequent on occasion:

http://www.gaypatriot.net/

(There’s a great piece on this whole Hot Air thread, too!)

-Logic (Gina)

Logic on February 24, 2010 at 7:41 AM

The gay-marriage movement is necessarily aggressive, because they seek a substantial change in society. I appreciate the strength of their conviction, and as long as they respect mine, we can have a civil discussion. The temptation to detonate conviction into anger is strong, and counter-productive. I’m no more impressed by Ryan Sorba’s act than I was by Perez Hilton’s.

That’s the most naive and backwards thing I’ve read a conservative say about gay rights in a long, long, time.

Twenty years ago there was no “gay marriage” movement. Gay Rights activists assured the public that gays would never want same sex marriage.

Like every other cause with a legitmate grievance, the Gay Rights movement is the most perfect example of “give ‘em inch and they’ll take a mile” if there ever was one. What started out as a true “civil rights” issue, that is not treating homosexuality as a crime, soon morphed into “you must accept me and my behavior or I will destroy you”.

The current target of the Gay Rights movement is not civil marriage. They don’t care about that. Gays already have so many extra rights, that unmarried hetro couples do not have, a civil marriage gives them nothing. What they really want is for religion to accept homosexuality as normal and they want to force all religions (except Islam, of course) to perform gay marriages.

But forget marriage for a minute. Nobody who calls themselves a small government, individual rights advocate could possibly support the gay rights movement and still have credibilty. This is a group of people who want the state to tell people how they can react to the personal habits of another person. Being homosexual is not a race, sex, nationality, or ethnic group. It is a behavior.

You cannot call yourself a conservative and then say it’s OK for the state to dictate how you can react to the personal habits of others.

Jaynie59 on February 24, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Logic on February 24, 2010 at 7:41 AM
Jaynie59 on February 24, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Good stuff.

JiangxiDad on February 24, 2010 at 8:00 AM

Contradiction here, Dr. Zero. Glaring contradiction. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. If you believe in traditional marriage, by definition you are opposed to gay-marriage. Whether you have this discussion now or later matters little. The results will be the same. No compromise is possible. No negotiations will succeed.

Contradiction here:

I believe in the positive value of the marriage tradition, and I reserve the right to celebrate that value without denigrating those who don’t participate in it.
The gay-marriage movement is necessarily aggressive, because they seek a substantial change in society. I appreciate the strength of their conviction, and as long as they respect mine, we can have a civil discussion.

And while we are at it, let`s take a break on another social issue called “religion”, but you will have to talk to allahpundit on that score . . . . I cannot see how the allah athiest obsession helps stave off socialism, either.

But I believe allah has dialed down the athiest thing of late. If so, good (in my view).

Sherman1864 on February 24, 2010 at 8:03 AM

Homosexuals do not deserve “minority” status. Homosexuality is a SIN. Now, we all have our areas of sin. None are perfect. Mine happens to be cursing. I can’t help it, sometimes a GD or F just slips out and I have to rebound. But I’m not going to form up a political movement and press for legislation that would make cursing legitimate and an alternative form of communication. Homosexuals are wrong to do that. They too need to confess their sin before God and move on.
Why should homosexuals vote Republican/Conservative? More jobs, better paying jobs, jobs with greater benefits, more economic prosperity, and the list goes on. That (and that alone) should be our only tactic in acquiring the gay vote. We certainly don’t want to fall into the miserable trap of trying to justify their immoral condition.
Maybe we need some new writers in the Green Room. We don’t want to see HA move towards the Meghan McCain wing of the GOP just because Allah has a big time crush on her, do we? We have some green room writers who’r trying to “suck up” to Allah, apparently, huh? Lost their objectivity. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on February 24, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Doc has got it right. Another excellent essay in the hopper.

Who cares about the definitions in the dictionary when the library itself is under assault and burning? Let’s focus on the stuff that unites us all, and worry about the less urgent matters afterward.

itzWicks on February 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Homosexuals do not deserve “minority” status. Homosexuality is a SIN. Now, we all have our areas of sin. None are perfect. Mine happens to be cursing. I can’t help it, sometimes a GD or F just slips out and I have to rebound. But I’m not going to form up a political movement and press for legislation that would make cursing legitimate and an alternative form of communication. Homosexuals are wrong to do that. They too need to confess their sin before God and move on.
Why should homosexuals vote Republican/Conservative? More jobs, better paying jobs, jobs with greater benefits, more economic prosperity, and the list goes on. That (and that alone) should be our only tactic in acquiring the gay vote. We certainly don’t want to fall into the miserable trap of trying to justify their immoral condition.
Maybe we need some new writers in the Green Room. We don’t want to see HA move towards the Meghan McCain wing of the GOP just because Allah has a big time crush on her, do we? We have some green room writers who’r trying to “suck up” to Allah, apparently, huh? Lost their objectivity. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on February 24, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Exactly!

pugwriter on February 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM

States’ rights is right. Being a fan of the Tenth Amendment does not preclude me from being a friend to gay men and women.

The Race Card on February 24, 2010 at 6:31 AM

That’s a big no-shitter, Sherlock.

You are correct. Finally, we agree on something. As for Blake….well, he speaks rather well for himself, so I’ll just let his words speak for his own bad self.

TRC, you are more than welcome to speak your mind, but you need to do something about that chip. Love ya, mean it….

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Whew, glad I found this. I thought there was only one gay thread today.

Akzed on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Whew, glad I found this. I thought there was only one gay thread today.

Akzed on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

:>)

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 8:59 AM

You cannot call yourself a conservative and then say it’s OK for the state to dictate how you can react to the personal habits of others.

Jaynie59 on February 24, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Maybe we need some new writers in the Green Room. We don’t want to see HA move towards the Meghan McCain wing of the GOP just because Allah has a big time crush on her, do we? We have some green room writers who’r trying to “suck up” to Allah, apparently, huh? Lost their objectivity. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on February 24, 2010 at 8:32 AM

So much for the plea to avoid excommunicating each other over disagreements.

Doctor Zero on February 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM

For all of you geniuses out there who don’t need anyone’s help; God bless you.

Myself, I’ll be on the side of anyone who will vote with some common sense, regardless of their sexual preference or their favorite football team or whatever.

It’s time to grow up, children. This is the fight of our lifetime; silly people need not apply. Gay, straight, fifty-fifty, whatever. Good Sweet Lord, it’s no accident that AP is an atheist. At least he’s honest; some of you people are the worst kind of hypocrites. So in that spirit, pffffffft.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Whew, glad I found this. I thought there was only one gay thread today.

Akzed on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM

This one’s left over from yesterday. I made it through the night without getting read out of the conservative movement, but you got here just in time to see my luck run out. I hope whoever replaces me in the Green Room remembers to sprinkle Twilight Zone jokes into their posts.

Doctor Zero on February 24, 2010 at 9:16 AM

I’m in no way a friend of the GOPProud agenda, but I’m glad that Hot Air retains its editorial independance at least at this time, and writers are still able to express their own opinions rather than having the “Conservative Christian Line” forced on them. I hope this continues…

quikstrike98 on February 24, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Each tribe would then resume shoving the wrecking ball of the State at the others, until someone gets flattened. That’s not the game conservatives, or Americans, should be playing.

Oddly enough, we became the greatest, most powerful and prosperous nation in history while sodomists were more or less in the closet. Maybe there’s a slight correlation. Not the whole ball o’ wax, but a slight correlation.

Akzed on February 24, 2010 at 9:26 AM

IMO, DocZero is spot-on, once again.

While it is altogether good that each individual citizen has their own right to use their personal “morality measure” when deciding who to vote for in any given election, it is NO ONE’S right to even remotely imply that because one is a conservative, they must also have a certain “type” of religious belief. It is equally NO ONE’S right to suggest that if one does not vote for the likes of Mike Hucakbee (for example), then they somehow aren’t “Christian enough” or “conservative enough” or, they “aren’t thinking of (their) country first”.

Know this….Looking to government for lessons on morality, is like looking to Bill Clinton for advice on how to have a stable marriage.

It is NOT a function of government to pry into the private lives of citizens, if they’ve committed no crimes, nor harmed another human being.

Wishing for/voting for/praying for government to start pushing a set of “government approved” morality policies, is literally allowing Government to become a “morality oracle” in our lives. Tell me this – how can a thing which is not moral, even begin to do this?

When we allow (or look to) government to provide legally-enforced lessons on morality, we are allowing government to step into the role of church, pastor, priest, temple, rabbi (etc). Lessons on morality, for many of us, come from our own personal religious beliefs, intermixed with family traditions or societal examples. So, keeping in mind the fact that our system of government is designed to swing left or right every so often…Is this REALLY something so-called “social conservatives” ought to be aiming for? Do they truly realize the slippery-slope they’d be getting us into, by pushing for government-approved/government-enforced moral policies? SERIOUSLY?!

Do we really want government to (amoung other things) insist that churches marry (or not marry) certain individuals? IS THAT A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT?! If your answer is yes, then think about this….When do churches get to decide who they will and will not marry? Shouldn’t this type of decision be left to churches, temples, and religious doctrine?

Please people…We’ve got way too much on our “plate” already, to be consumed and torn apart by another round of “social” issues timed to coincide with yet another election.

Talismen on February 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Because of my respect for Dr. Zero’s previous contributions, which consistently show clarity of thought and irrefutable logic, I had to read this a couple of times and consider it. After doing so, I think he has finally wiffed one.

While I agree that it is highly unlikely that the Salem group has issued any direction for HA to become more homosexual-friendly, there’s no question that we have seen a spate of gay oriented topics recently and they have been dealt with sympathetically if not with outright approval by AP and Ed. To me it’s unsurprising that Mr. Fisher noticed and chose to speak about it. After all, as we all commented on during the recent sale of HA, it’s an important site and reflective of current conservative thought. So why the surprise Doc?

The issue of GOPROUD at CPAC is worthy of comment. I would not have approved of their attendance had I anything to do with it. The issue is that the central unifying theme of GOPROUD is their sexual orientation. That’s the problem. It’s not like they are individuals who support conservative causes and happen to be gay. It’s that they came as a gay organization and just happens to support some conservative causes. CPAC, by approving their attendance, was implicitly, if not explicitly, endorsing their main unifying theme. If you expect social con’s like myself to not react to and protest that, forget it.

Many of you seem to think that we should just set aside core beliefs in order to attain some fiscal sanity or political gain in other areas. I understand the goal, but in the end what good does it do to profit a man if he loses his soul? Would you be willing to bring NAMBLA aboard if they endorsed drilling in ANWR? What about the Swingers group if they were for the repeal of the Death Tax? How about the polygamists if they were against TARP II? Yeah, me neither. Similarly, endorsing, or even accepting, GOPROUD is out.

SoonerMarine on February 24, 2010 at 9:36 AM

And “Hot Air,” now under Christian management, has made Sorba out to be the bad guy.

MM wasn’t “Christian management”?

Count to 10 on February 24, 2010 at 9:37 AM

father on February 24, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Do you have any stats to back that up?

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2010 at 3:45 AM

I think we need to have a debate on what constitutes marriage. I would like to see gov’t get out of the business of defining marriage and let people create their own marriage contracts that the courts would then enforce. Then the Catholic church and Protestant churches could put out requirements for a marriage contract that would meet their requirements. After that it would be up to individuals and groups to recognize those marriages.

This would be a way for gays to be married but would also allow others the freedom to not recognize gay marriage. There no one is happy but everyone gets a bit of what they want.

Bill C on February 24, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Happy to acknowledge and welcome Conservatives from all corners of American life. But please don’t tell me that my opposition to gay marriage equals opposition to gay existence or the civil rights of any American. It doesn’t. Having you scream in my face about your “rights” doesn’t impress me or change my mind. Other than that, welcome, friend.

SKYFOX on February 24, 2010 at 9:42 AM

MM wasn’t “Christian management”?

Count to 10 on February 24, 2010 at 9:37 AM

MM had a hands off policy towards HA. And considering all the Christian bashing and promoting of atheism by AP, it’s disingenuous of you to even assume she was. You’re a very uninformed and dishonest troll.

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Would you be willing to bring NAMBLA aboard if they endorsed drilling in ANWR?

SoonerMarine on February 24, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Sure, so long as I can use them as drill bits.

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 9:45 AM

MM had a hands off policy towards HA. And considering all the Christian bashing and promoting of atheism by AP, it’s disingenuous of you to even assume she was. You’re a very uninformed and dishonest troll.

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Oh give it a rest. AP is clear about his views on religion. I just think it is strange to say Hot Air is only now under “Christian management” when MM has been clear about her views as well.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Anyway, on topic:
The main problem I see with “gay marriage” is that it attempts to fit same sex relationships into the same mold as opposite sex relationships. Basically, it encourages people to buy into the “identity” theory of sexuality — where people “are gay” and “are strait”, completely disregarding the fact that these are behaviors.
Someone who prefers sexual interaction with their own sex should not be discouraged from seeking an arrangement with a member of the opposite sex to have and to raise children, yet that is what the idea of same-sex-marriage, and all of the mythology that goes with it, does.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2010 at 9:53 AM

While I agree that it is highly unlikely that the Salem group has issued any direction for HA to become more homosexual-friendly, there’s no question that we have seen a spate of gay oriented topics recently and they have been dealt with sympathetically if not with outright approval by AP and Ed. To me it’s unsurprising that Mr. Fisher noticed and chose to speak about it. After all, as we all commented on during the recent sale of HA, it’s an important site and reflective of current conservative thought. So why the surprise Doc?

SoonerMarine on February 24, 2010 at 9:36 AM

It’s not just “unlikely” that Salem Communications sent out any directives, unless they attached them to the bottom of the daily load of spam I receive from townhall.com, and I just didn’t see them.

What I find surprising is that anyone thinks it’s odd, or conspiratorial, that a group of completely un-coordinated bloggers would write about a hot topic that included a rather vicious direct attack at our website. I would imagine most of our Green Room posts on this subject were written more or less simultaneously. This doesn’t constitute Hot Air “going gay,” although I have to admit Sarjex’s proposed redesign of the site is rather catchy.

I haven’t sacrificed a single one of my core beliefs. I even included links back to them. I’m most concerned about the core beliefs under direct attack at the moment, and whose expression would do the greatest good for my country. I don’t accept that I must endorse someone’s entire agenda to welcome them aboard when they say they agree with me. When we must, inevitably, turn to those places where we differ, let it be an honest contest between honorable adversaries.

Doctor Zero on February 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM

What I find surprising is that anyone thinks it’s odd, or conspiratorial, that a group of completely un-coordinated bloggers would write about a hot topic that included a rather vicious direct attack at our website. I would imagine most of our Green Room posts on this subject were written more or less simultaneously. This doesn’t constitute Hot Air “going gay,” although I have to admit Sarjex’s proposed redesign of the site is rather catchy.

Well, then, excuse me for asking, but then why is this article entitled “in defense of gay conservatives” rather than “in defense of HotAir’s stance on conservatives who happen to be gay?”

If the accusation of there being “too much gay-friendly material on HotAir of late” is what upset you, then why did you equate Sorba’s objections to a homosexual ACTIVIST group at CPAC with Perez Hilton’s vicious personal attacks on Prejean?

That constitutes an “Honest contest between honorable adversaries?” Not hardly.

JannyMae on February 24, 2010 at 10:11 AM

It’s not just “unlikely” that Salem Communications sent out any directives, unless they attached them to the bottom of the daily load of spam I receive from townhall.com, and I just didn’t see them.

Doctor Zero on February 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Lolz.

Bill C on February 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Leave the identity politics to the nitwits who look at Marco Rubio and see a coconut.

Identity politics? Who is it that is obsessed with identifying themselves by what they do with their sexual organs at a political function (CPAC)? You’re beloved “gay conservatives”.

And this notion that we can’t defend the institution of marriage while simultaneously fighting our current descent into an economic abyss is just inane.

The Zoo Keeper on February 24, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Someone explain again why God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah? You who viciously attack those of us who try to live our lives according to God’s dictates don’t intimidate nor move us. Calling us names is only proof that your argument is lacking.

CCRWM on February 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Someone who prefers sexual interaction with their own sex should not be discouraged from seeking an arrangement with a member of the opposite sex to have and to raise children, yet that is what the idea of same-sex-marriage, and all of the mythology that goes with it, does.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2010 at 9:53 AM

The government shouldn’t encourage either way. Gay couples should be able to get the same tax & benefit treatment as straights. There aren’t separate gay mortgages when they buy a house. Similarly, they should have the same tax tools for willing property to each other.

Leave the mythology of marriage to the churches. The government is already to big and inefficient.

dedalus on February 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Someone explain again why God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah? You who viciously attack those of us who try to live our lives according to God’s dictates don’t intimidate nor move us. Calling us names is only proof that your argument is lacking.

CCRWM on February 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM

What about all the American fornicators? The rate of pre-marital sex is above 90%. Should tax dollars be used to control that behavior?

dedalus on February 24, 2010 at 10:45 AM

I know I’m late to this party but I can’t seem to escape this thread. What is immorality? An immoral (unethical may be a better word) act is that which is perceived by the group to be counter to the survival of the individual or the group. Since the basic purpose of all life forms is Survival, this is no small consideration. I suppose that eating pork once came under this umbrella since people became ill and died from its diseases. It eventually came to be written into some of the various religious texts as a “sin”. Today, we can usually eat pork without fear because we know to cook it well enough to avoid disease and death.
Now to homosexuality: It has been considered a contra-survival behavior because of its unique illnesses such as AIDS and its perceived potential to nullifying the human race through non-procreation. Hence, also written up as sin in religious texts. It will never be truly “normal” behavior due to this aspect. And I must admit that I personally find some of its practices disgusting. Having said that, the libertarian in me says if they want to do this consentually in the privacy of their own homes, fine, but please don’t classify the behavior as an oppressed group requiring special rights. This is imposing immoral behavior on the rest of us.
I really draw the line at two gay men trying to adopt. That is not how the survival blueprint is written. I could go on and talk about how it has fully permeated our society, with the likes of the new “Safe Schools Czar” surely wanting to teach our youngsters “fisting” etc. But I think you all get the idea.
Thanks for bearing with me.

VBMax on February 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#6

This is what GOProud wants to destroy.

But it’s cool to be friends with gays, so why not? Never mind only a immeasurably tiny percent vote republican, and never mind all the social conservatives who vote and contribute in very large amounts to the GOP will walk.

In fact, I think this whole Hot Air “gay” obsession is nothing more than a thumb in the eye to social conservatives.

Way to screw up November guys – drive a wedge between one of our largest constituencies when we’re poised to really wipe the floor with the progressives, because religious people give you the creeps.

Talk about bigotry.

Rebar on February 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Oh give it a rest. AP is clear about his views on religion. I just think it is strange to say Hot Air is only now under “Christian management” when MM has been clear about her views as well.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2010 at 9:48 AM

You give it a rest. You are the one who made the dumbazz comment I was responding to. And since you repeat your idiocy let me say again that MM did not manage HA. And if AP made clear his antireligious views and he controlled – not MM, what he posted on HA, and Salem has told him to knock off all the atheism posts, it is abundantly clear that HA was not under “Christian management.”

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Dedalus… To try to answer your question I will say that I think we are in deep trouble… The United states is the largest exporter of violence, pornogrphy, promiscuity, materialism, sloth etc. in the world via Hollywood. I believe that we being founded on Christian principles have been greatly blessed by God and because we are alienating ourselves from Him, He will soon remove his hand of protection. Petunia and several others have stated well that if one is truely a believer, which I for one am, then we can’t abide by the denegration of our morals and values. I believe that my actions and my obedience here on earth will determine where I spend my eternity and so I will not aquiece to things I know Gos does not approve of. Your argument about taxes is irrelevant because you are putting Govt in a proactive stance there where it is not… forcing the gay agenda would be… I’m a manager in a large Co in L A I learned a long tome ago to hold to my beliefs and though that has caused some pain and discomfort I am relieved I’ve never succumbed to anti Christian beliefs. In my life ” God First” is not some empty meaningless cliche… There are a lot if people like me…

CCRWM on February 24, 2010 at 11:28 AM

As a gay conservative I take exception to the pontificating of CCRWM. Because I’m gay does not mean I don’t love my country or that I am not a Christian. Granted most gays vote with their crotch instead of their brains lets not assume all gays are libs. I fully understand that marraige is between a man and woman and they are welcome to each other. The most important thing we can do as Americans is work to defeat this horror that has taken over the Fed also know as communist….BO and company America haters who must be defeated by all of us and will never be defeated by exclusions.

SANTA on February 24, 2010 at 12:00 PM

SANTA on February 24, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I know gay conservatives and I’m super glad to have them on my side, (as friends, neighbors, fellow conservatives etc.) But I will take it a step further: one cannot call him or herself a strict constructionist and support DOMA. I don’t believe in a government definition of marriage at all. I get that the original intent was for probate purposes, but we have enough lawyers and DNA testing now that it’s unnecessary – and from a fiscally conservative perspective, it would benefit us all if the gov’t got the elevated tax revenue they could get from other DINKS, (double income / no kids couples – like my husband and I,) via recognizing civil unions and NOT marriage. ANYONE who wants to get “married” should have a private ceremony and be able to do it. Recognizing civil unions for everyone would take the gov’t out of peoples’ private lives and not discriminate against hetero couples who don’t have kids.

foxforce91 on February 24, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Oh, no! The OPR complained that 4 out of the 17 judges on the European Court of Human Rights dissented from a holding Yoo cited and he should have mentioned it. Unreal!

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Oh, no! Wrong thread!

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Rebar on February 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

If you read out that platform without citing the source, you’d be howled off the stage as a fringe-kook bigot.

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Doc,

I appreciate that you read and consider what people post. It only enhances my opinion of you.

It’s not just “unlikely” that Salem Communications sent out any directives, unless they attached them to the bottom of the daily load of spam I receive from townhall.com, and I just didn’t see them.

I believe you. But, since I’m not privy to any communications between Salem and HA to me it was “unlikely”.

What I find surprising is that anyone thinks it’s odd, or conspiratorial, that a group of completely un-coordinated bloggers would write about a hot topic

I don’t know about Mr. Fisher since I can’t get to his link at work, but I had no visions of you, AP and Ed in the (virtual) smoke-filled room saying; Hey, let’s push the gay meme. I merely remarked on what is objectively true, there have been a lot of gay themed posts recently and the general tone from the posters has been approving.

I haven’t sacrificed a single one of my core beliefs. I even included links back to them.

I probably should have said I rather than a more inclusive we. I know only what you’ve chosen to reveal about your core beliefs and I’m in no position to accuse you of abandoning them. The links you provided dealt specifically with the topic of gay marriage. That’s a more narrow issue than the overall acceptance of or inclusion of homosexuality in our society. Homosexuality is either a moral wrong or it’s not. If it is then it should not be endorsed in any way, whether it’s marriage, civil unions, adoptions etc. Any more than should the other groups I mentioned. We won’t recognize polygamy as marriage, but we’ll recognize a group civil union. Maybe even come up with a catchy name for it. Then it’s all cool, right?

You want to make compromises with groups and join together to battle what you see as the immediate crises. Well, I understand that and we all do it to some extent. I like and support Sarah Palin, but I don’t agree with everthing she says. I supported Scott Brown but I knew from the beginning we have serious policy differences in some areas. The question is where to draw the line. And to me, bringing aboard a gay advocacy group is beyond that line.

A final thought is that we better be careful when trying to make that tent big. The Monarchists and German Army thought that they could control and use Hitler to fight what they saw as the more dangerous enemy, the communists. But, before they knew it they were taking the Fuhrer loyalty oath and it was his agenda not theirs that was in the lead.

SoonerMarine on February 24, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Homosexuality is either a moral wrong or it’s not.

I look at my fellow social cons who a) seem to understand that the bible says homosexual sex is a sin; and b) ignore the fact that it is the act that is the abomination, not the person; and lastly c) disregard the call to love your neighbor and replace it with one in which we are each our own Torquemada purging the unworthy, and I despair.

makewi on February 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Doctor Zero:

Please don’t let the few intolerant bigots dominate. You are needed here now more than ever. I love your writing style and I love your devotion. Don’t let’em get you down, for you are truly gifted and truly needed.

Of course I’m right, as always.

the redneck hillbilly toldya so.

PLEASE DON’T CAVE TO THE CHILDREN.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Well, if the tolerance of guys like Doctor Zero or Allah offends you, please, do leave. If their insistence that homosexuals aren’t subhuman means that they’ve breached “true conservative” values or “Judeo-Christian history ethics”, then maybe this blog isn’t for you.

Vyce on February 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM

So, who died and made you hall monitor and authority to tell me this isn’t the blog for me? I never said anything about “sub-human” (sic) but you did. And it isn’t “tolerance” that I abhor, but a lack of moral values.

I did say that moral values, as embodied in faith based belief, are CONSERVATIVE and are part of what conservatives should espouse and advocate on behalf of… Obviously those that yelled down Ryan Sorba need to be educated about “tolerance” more than true conservatives and those that attack him (and us) as “haters” need instruction on the meaning of the word.

TBenton on February 24, 2010 at 3:04 PM

As for Blake….well, he speaks rather well for himself, so I’ll just let his words speak for his own bad self.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Don’t lob grenades and then whine when they come back at you. Hypocrite.

Blake on February 24, 2010 at 3:08 PM

PLEASE DON’T CAVE TO THE CHILDREN.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM

You mean, like the “children” who wrote the republican party platform?

Those children?

Rebar on February 24, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Please point out where in the Republican party platform it specifies that openly homosexual individuals should be excluded.

makewi on February 24, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Doctor Zero:

Please don’t let the few intolerant bigots dominate. You are needed here now more than ever. I love your writing style and I love your devotion. Don’t let’em get you down, for you are truly gifted and truly needed.

Of course I’m right, as always.

the redneck hillbilly toldya so.

PLEASE DON’T CAVE TO THE CHILDREN.

hillbillyjim on February 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Wow. So, if someone has a reason to oppose gay “marriage”, obviously they’re intolerant bigots, and/or from your other posts, devoid of common sense, petty, immature, immature again, and of course, “holier-than-thou pricks”.

I won’t bother to tell you that you aren’t the only poster on this site who has and continues to have gay and lesbian friends. Nor are you the only one who has respect the for work ethic, reasoning abilities, technical skills, driving ability, color coordination, or just all around good peopleness of individual homosexuals. Those things, I’m sure, you don’t want to hear.

I’ll let you continue to believe that there is nobody on this site who was mentored by a gay man, being exposed to his impressive technical skills while being taught some pretty serious life lessons. I’ll also let you believe that nobody watched their friend, and his mate, slowly succumb to AIDS. And I really won’t tell you that there were people who knew the family he left behind from his days in the closet, his wife, his son, his daughter. Because, you know, we’re all so narrow minded, and I wouldn’t want to bruise the proud image you hold of your own world view.

I will politely suggest that you learn to respect the experiences of others, and allow them to give testimony to their own reasons for supporting or opposing gay marriage, or the rewriting of Webster’s dictionary, or whatever.

applebutter on February 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM

foxforce91 on February 24, 2010 at 12:30 PM

I agree with your proposal, although I would like to see the govt. move away from any kind of preferential tax treatment based on “couple status.” Full disclosure: I am single, so I feel a bit of kinship with gays who want the same rights that married couples have. If, for instance, I move in with my brother some day when I’m old and gray, I would like for him to be able to make decisions for me when I’m incapacitated, and to receive my property when I pass on, free of taxes or other govt. red tape. I realize you can contract around this to some degree (at least where the IRS is not involved) via trusts, but a trust can still be challenged whereas if you’re married to someone, you basically have iron-clad rights.

I guess this is as much to do with preserving personal liberty and property rights as with anything. I see no reason why, for example, as a single person, I have to see the inheritance I bequeath to others or receive from my elders to be treated differently from one I would leave to/receive from a spouse. Of course, the best way to address this particular problem would be to build a big bonfire on the National Mall and torch the entire tax code.

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Well, the solution to the gay problem is obvious. God commands that all gays be killed (Lev. 20:13), a position endorsed by Jesus himself (Matthew 5:17-20).

You guys better get busy killing before Jesus sends you to Hell for not murdering every gay person you encounter.

Vic on February 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Vic on February 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM

I eat beef, which supposedly will help kill the planet faster. So I’m good.

Chris_Balsz on February 24, 2010 at 5:03 PM

“they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” being shorthand for “You humans better get busy killin dem dere gheys”. Theology for people in a real hurry who are more interested in being in a hurry than getting it right.

makewi on February 24, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Ed Morrisory had an excellent short, concise statement the other day. I wish that I had copied it and could paste it in at this time. I must say, thank you Hot Air for your support of gay conservatives.

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I read a few hours earlier (link on Drudge) that “Hispanics” in Texas are by majority now “reporting as Conservative”.

But if you pause past the hyperbole (headline and most of the article associated with the headline, after the jump), you discover that what these “Hispanics” call “conservative” and why are entirely different than what “Conservative” actually means (social, political issues and voting and upon what reasons).

These reported Hispanics deem themselves ‘conservative’ because, it’s hidden way down in the article, they advocate for a strong work ethic and family unity.

But VOTING is a different thing, because, never has a Leftwing cause or campaigner called who they don’t support (most do).

So they’re not Conservative in the sense that others regard that word and how it’s defined, but they ARE ‘conservative’ in their own dialogue and minds. They consider themselves ‘conservative’ but they aren’t representational of Conservativism in the political sense.

I think this well defines the same group who are currently indoctrinating the public about being ‘gay conservatives’.

Lourdes on February 24, 2010 at 11:40 PM

Lourdes on February 24, 2010 at 11:41 PM

SC.Charlie on February 24, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Here’s where I counter your perception: that article you refer to (“argument” you refer to) is based upon a Straw Man premise.

The “argument” declares that “Republicans need to get over their (fear of, something in that regard, some negative characteristic that the author applies to ‘Republicans’) ‘gays’ (whatever — I’m paraphrasing).

So the reader is initially and overwhelmingly introduced and then led through a maze of “argument” “against” some “fear” that “the Republicans” have or are declared to have such that it must be overcome.

It’s a Straw Man argument. That means, it’s misleading.

Lourdes on February 24, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3