Palin defends GOProud participation at CPAC

posted at 10:12 am on February 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

No great surprise here, really; Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT and expressed support for conservative gays and lesbians in the past. Speaking here with David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network and excerpted by Breitbart TV, Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC, and argues that the value of events such as CPAC is to debate the issues and provide as much information as possible to attendees:

Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have, the better.

I’m not sure we’ve polled on this question at all, so this seems like a good time to do so. Should conservatives welcome GOProud, or should they skip CPAC if GOProud participates?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 10

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

You need to take a reading comprehension course.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Palin can’t support “gay marriage” for the same reason any Christian can’t, it’s not bliblical. We don’t get to make up or change the rules, we have to obey them.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Agreed. But what do we do when confronted with others that don’t see the world with the same world-view? Cast them out into the darkness where there’s weeping and gnashing of teeth? Isn’t that God’s purview? Is that how one becomes ‘Salt of the Earth’? Ridding yourself of the presence of those pesky sinners? …a group that no one here is obviously a part of.

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Nahh, Mad Con has been well pegged as a Leftwinger in comments over the years on numerous occasions. He or she just likes to deceive people that he or she is “Conservative” but actual Conservatives can tell the difference. Mad Con just maintains the ruse, or tries to.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM

He’s quite an agressive, unpleasasnt and vulgar guy… I’d just ignore him…

I’d also advise, if I may, that you ease up on Palin because she is not for gay marriage or rights for gays that all citizens dont have. If you have evidence to the contrary then share it because even with DADT I’ve not seen her endorse that, I’ve seen where she has said we have bigger problems to deal with… don’t get disracted by this issue. Again, not an endorsement of homosexuality.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Well I can’t make a decision on this until Jenfidel weighs in with her opinion.

Knucklehead on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Honestly, I have a bit of respect for Jenfidel…she’s definetly a step up from Lourdes.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Palin can’t support “gay marriage” for the same reason any Christian can’t, it’s not bliblical. We don’t get to make up or change the rules, we have to obey them.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Maybe Palin differentiates between her church and her state. People have the liberty to do all manner of things that one might not condone. We don’t want a government that has the power to restrict citizens to its ideal of proper behavior.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 12:31 PM

But if all you have is arguing about a friggin’ screen name, because you have no basis for anything else you’re saying on the topic at hand, is pretty much waving that white flag of surrender.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM

You think this issue is “about a friggin’ screen name”?! How evasive and sneaky can you be and still type out comments?

It was one observation. You remarked about it. I responded about your remark. You remarked again.. I responded again. That you’re so obsessed with this one observation of mine from much earlier while not addressing the more important issues is you being a sneaky pig. To return to the original response I made to your nasty remark about me a while ago.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Do you follow politics, culture, the NEWS?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Never.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Palin can’t support “gay marriage” for the same reason any Christian can’t, it’s not bliblical. We don’t get to make up or change the rules, we have to obey them.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:22 PM

One of your biblical 10 Commandments prohibits adultery. Should adultery therefore be criminalized?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” -George Washington (Address of George Washington, President of the United States, Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

The Founding Fathers debated the moral consequences of allowing slavery to continue.

They never debated the moral consequences of mainstreaming sexual perversion.

I guess it just never crossed their minds.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM

That explains your ignorance then. I noticed you didn’t place the rest of my posting up, Eh?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Maybe Palin differentiates between her church and her state. People have the liberty to do all manner of things that one might not condone. We don’t want a government that has the power to restrict citizens to its ideal of proper behavior.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Amen, brother. These anti-gay conservatives want the govt to enforce their idea of ideal behaior on everyone else. So much for restricted government; you know, something conservatives are supposed to believe in.

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM

I guess it just never crossed their minds.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Because there weren’t any sexual “perverts” here in 1789, just as there aren’t any in Iran today, right?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

You think this issue is “about a friggin’ screen name”?! How evasive and sneaky can you be and still type out comments?

You’re the one who brought it up…more than once…nice try tho. Anyhoo, I’m done. My feather boa is a bit wilty and needs a good fluff.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Honestly, I have a bit of respect for Jenfidel…she’s definetly a step up from Lourdes.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

That’s not saying much since Jen needs an umbrella to keep the ants from pee’ing on her.

Knucklehead on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:26 PM

CPAC invited GOProud, because they’re liberals, because they’re pro-gay, and because liberals are pro-Mohammed, because Mohammed is pro-gay. And any admitted gay posters on HA must be thoroughly attacked, insulted, and demeaned because they’re gay. And anyone who finds that behavior repugnant is merely another liberal, which everyone knows because of their history of posting.

Lourdes logic is so fascinating.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

You’ll just have to allow me to have “rights” like you do homosexual activists.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Yep, we’ve nicknamed CindyMunford ‘conservativeblowhardrightstakerawayer’ which is longer than her screen name but suits her as much as ‘mad con’ does for that lefty.

myrenovations on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I have no problem with your views, just that your attempts at stating your argument is sadly lacking. Seriously, how long are you going to dwell on the anonymous name of a fellow commenter? Hardly compelling.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

One of your biblical 10 Commandments prohibits adultery. Should adultery therefore be criminalized?
MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Uh, yes. It’s a violation of a contract.

It was illegal in all states until governments started meddling in the institution of marriage.

If one is convicted of adultery in a divorce case he should lose community property and custody of the children.

You see, when there are no penalties for evil, you get more of it.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM

myrenovations on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Stop blowing my cover!!!

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Of course not, but a group defining itself as ‘Proud adulterers in the GOP’ should not be supported or allowed/recognized.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Then they should and eventually will lose the support of those of us who still espouse morals and standards.
No it is not immoral to oppose a practice which is described by a book many of us believe to be the basis of Western civilization as abominable.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I guess you missed the “debate” part. what are you afraid of with debating the “Proud drug addicts for the GOP” Do you fear your ability to win the debate against the drug addicts? Can you not show people how being a drug addict is not a good lifestyle choice? Only people who are afraid of the outcome of the debate would push to close down the debate.

I would want the Proud drug addicts for the GOp to show up. So my children could see and hear how terrible those drug addicts lifestyle are. Our children can not make the moral and can not understand why the standards are in place unless they see the ramifications of breaking those morals and standards.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM

That explains your ignorance then. I noticed you didn’t place the rest of my posting up, Eh?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM

What are you saying? I’m sorry, I never keep up on politics, news, or culture. I’d have to, you know, visit and participate in political blogs for years.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Well I can’t make a decision on this until Jenfidel weighs in with her opinion.

Knucklehead on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Honestly, I have a bit of respect for Jenfidel…she’s definetly a step up from Lourdes.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Mr. Boy, you have outdone yourself in being an utter cad. From your wormhole, I assume we all look ‘up’ to you, all of us Social Conservatives who don’t tolerate fools such as yourself.

I assume we Social Conservatives don’t have those same “rights” you homosexuals claim your behavior entitles you to? No commenting in public for Social Conservatives who don’t tolerate fools easily, right, that’s your point?

Alpha Mike Foxtrot.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I have no problem with your views, just that your attempts at stating your argument is sadly lacking. Seriously, how long are you going to dwell on the anonymous name of a fellow commenter? Hardly compelling.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

As long as his hatred will sustain him. From the looks of it, it’ll be a long time.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Agreed. But what do we do when confronted with others that don’t see the world with the same world-view? Cast them out into the darkness where there’s weeping and gnashing of teeth? Isn’t that God’s purview? Is that how one becomes ‘Salt of the Earth’? Ridding yourself of the presence of those pesky sinners? …a group that no one here is obviously a part of.

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

We stay true to our convictions in spite of the hate and vitriol that will descend upon us. We try to educate but if someone flat out rejects the Word of God and we’ve done our best then yes, we walk away. We can’t impose people have to come to GOd willingly.

We actually have the position of love. We are wiling to be called all sorts of names and treated badly because we won’t acquiese. We don’t acquiese because we believe that the behavior leads to one’s condemnation. We don’t want that. But the Hatefilled Left is working hard to make us look like backward bigots full of hate because we don’t want to nicely walk someone to the gates of hell…

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Because there weren’t any sexual “perverts” here in 1789, just as there aren’t any in Iran today, right?
MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Did I imply that? Or are you just putting words in my mouth?

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:26 PM

CPAC invited GOProud, because they’re liberals, because they’re pro-gay, and because liberals are pro-Mohammed, because Mohammed is pro-gay. And any admitted gay posters on HA must be thoroughly attacked, insulted, and demeaned because they’re gay. And anyone who finds that behavior repugnant is merely another liberal, which everyone knows because of their history of posting.

Lourdes logic is so fascinating.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

In your Land of the Mentally Lost, you are the last one to find the one clue available.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Uh, yes. It’s a violation of a contract.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM

You just described a civil action, not a criminal one. You do know the difference, I hope. I will ask again should adultery be a crime?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:39 PM

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Very good and true response.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:39 PM

One of your biblical 10 Commandments prohibits adultery. Should adultery therefore be criminalized?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

If the government doesn’t recognize something does that make it criminal? Gays can go to the Unitarian Universalist church or wherever, have a ceremony and call themselves married all they want. Nothing has been criminalized here.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM

We don’t want a government that has the power to restrict citizens to its ideal of proper behavior.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Yeap because that path brings you Jim Crow type laws. after all was not slavery the government restricting their citizens to proper behavior.

I’ll admit ists a fine line but a government should uphold lawful behavior instead of moral behavior. That is a religion’s job.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Typical leftist reply. Can’t actually refute the argument then attack the messenger. If somebody is deceptive or disingenuous then they deserve to be attacked, but not until then.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM

One of your biblical 10 Commandments prohibits adultery. Should adultery therefore be criminalized?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Newt hardest hit.

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Right, but that doesn’t address the question. We know that adultery is not a crime. The question is should it be in your opinion? More specifically, if our laws are based on the Christian bible as I so often hear, should it be a Federal crime?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

the_nile on February 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Newt doesn’t stand up proclaiming his pride in adultery, does he?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Did I imply that? Or are you just putting words in my mouth?

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

At Akzed: what the Libertarian/Liberals in their disguises do here in comments, is “rewrite” points of view they oppose in nonsensical terms such that the point of any discussion both becomes cast aside and the argument flawed.

Then they name call, then they chum together as if they’ve “made a funny” and then they start the same process over again.

Let them waste their time, it’s only an effective method by the Left here to waste their time.

Most people who are meaningful have already opposed CPAC in it’s current formation and have made their positions known about that and as to why they have concluded as they have. It’s the Left who continues to display a “need” to lather this up for their own purposes, I guess so they can feel “good about CPAC” this year while CPAC continues it’s course as the circus in town.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Lourdes logic is so fascinating.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Ironic that the arguments and talking points Lourdes constantly gravitates to reek more of sounding like pages from the liberal playbook on how to “debate”.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

You just described a civil action, not a criminal one. You do know the difference, I hope. I will ask again should adultery be a crime? MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:39 PM

You’re right.

A. It is still illegal in many states. I have no problem with it being illegal in all fifty states.

B. It is also grounds for divorce, with other civil penalties.

Sorry for the conflation.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

We stay true to our convictions in spite of the hate and vitriol that will descend upon us. We try to educate but if someone flat out rejects the Word of God and we’ve done our best then yes, we walk away. We can’t impose people have to come to GOd willingly.

We actually have the position of love. We are wiling to be called all sorts of names and treated badly because we won’t acquiese. We don’t acquiese because we believe that the behavior leads to one’s condemnation. We don’t want that. But the Hatefilled Left is working hard to make us look like backward bigots full of hate because we don’t want to nicely walk someone to the gates of hell…

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Nice speech. Really. And I agree with it too. However, can you honestly say that a lot of what has gone on this board comes from a position of love? This thread does not need the hate-filled left to work hard to make conservatives look like hate-filled bigots. We’re doing a good enough job of that ourselves. If I were gay, I would run far, far away from many of these posters and their world-view. Trust me, you won’t be walking nicely to the gates of hell with any gay person. They would’ve abandoned you long ago.

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

We are not our brother’s keeper. We have the power to choice how we live, we have a duty to live our lives within God’s rules, we can and should try to show the proper and rightous path but at the end of the day each individual is free to choose their path. and when they choose that path that decision is their responsibility.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

If the government doesn’t recognize something does that make it criminal? Gays can go to the Unitarian Universalist church or wherever, have a ceremony and call themselves married all they want. Nothing has been criminalized here.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM

What if a gay man wants to visit a sick partner in a hospital as a spouse? Or wants to settle a custody or inheritance matter in court? Or wants to obtain a marriage license?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Nobody’s talking about crimes here, or did I miss something?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Right, but that doesn’t address the question. We know that adultery is not a crime. The question is should it be in your opinion? More specifically, if our laws are based on the Christian bible as I so often hear, should it be a Federal crime?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

I’ll join in here and respond to that question of yours.

Ethics are above and beyond “laws.” One functions based upon one’s ethics. That includes those who violate laws and those who observe laws.

What a person’s ethics are is what their character is. Christians — most — formulate ethics based upon the Bible as do Orthodox Jews based upon the Hebrew Bible. From those ethics, their behavior flows.

If and when a law exists that requires them to be “lawful” by violating their ethics, then the quandary begins and most will opt to abide by their ethics in one variation that does not violate the law/s but does accommodate and follow their ethics.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Trust me, you won’t be walking nicely to the gates of hell with any gay person. They would’ve abandoned you long ago.

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM

I don’t really want to walk to the gates of hell. i would rather take the opposite walk.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I won’t go so far as to call him a hater or deny his right to voice his opinion, he’s not alone, but I think it’s safe to say he isn’t winning any converts.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Nobody’s talking about crimes here, or did I miss something?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

@ cjk: some people here are attempting to find a loophole to rationalize certain behaviors that they need to maintain if not promote among others.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

So? What if a good friend who isn’t gay is in the same position???

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Maybe Palin differentiates between her church and her state. People have the liberty to do all manner of things that one might not condone. We don’t want a government that has the power to restrict citizens to its ideal of proper behavior.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 12:31 PM

I do. I don’t want murderers, thieves and child molesters to have unrestricted behavior rights because the government gave up the power to restrict them.

Palin will respect any law of the land. This is why she didn’t veto homosexuals ability to get spousal benefits in AK when she was Gov. But think that Palin knows that the bigger a government gets the more it gets to impose on you and she does not want the imposition of laws that restrict the rights of Christians becaue the law makers i.e. government is anti Christian or Progressive. Neither do I though, I think in the coming years it’s going to get harder for Christians not only in the US but all over the world.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I have no problem with your views, just that your attempts at stating your argument is sadly lacking. Seriously, how long are you going to dwell on the anonymous name of a fellow commenter? Hardly compelling.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

As long as his hatred will sustain him. From the looks of it, it’ll be a long time.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM

You two along with Mr. Jet seem to be the actual “haters” here. Doesn’t facebook accommodate your antisocial hatred enough? I mean, you can go there and gossip all day and night.

I don’t hate anyone. I find the three of you utterly immature and emotionally irresponsible, as also, the intellectual equivalent of people who cheat on junior high algebra exams.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM

What if a gay man wants to visit a sick partner in a hospital as a spouse? Or wants to settle a custody or inheritance matter in court? Or wants to obtain a marriage license?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

What do those things have to do with criminality? Not getting what you want doesn’t make you a criminal.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM

It’s nice to see people stand up for truth amid such attacks, Lourdes.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Is that what I did when I asked for Akzed’s opinion? My but I’m so impressed with how you know my mind so much better than I do myself.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM

No no no, you see, disagreeing with Madison”Conservative” makes you a hater. Even when he tosses the f-bomb at you, you’re the hater.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM

One of your biblical 10 Commandments prohibits adultery. Should adultery therefore be criminalized?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

It already has been. Just because men don’t follow Gods rules doesn’t mean that the rule is invalid, it just means man is in disobedience. Any unrepented sin is a huge problem for the sinner.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Lourdes logic is so fascinating.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Ironic that the arguments and talking points Lourdes constantly gravitates to reek more of sounding like pages from the liberal playbook on how to “debate”.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Hey, facebook is having a sale on gossip! Isn’t that cool? You can probably find, like, hey, five hundred people over there to gossip about and, hey, like, you can be cooler than them and stuff, you know.

Mad Con, JetBoyo and Cindy Munford with Chewy the Lab running along beside you: The Gossip Train.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Typical leftist reply. Can’t actually refute the argument then attack the messenger. If somebody is deceptive or disingenuous then they deserve to be attacked, but not until then.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Are you talking about me, or the guy that’s been attacking another poster over his username for pages?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

It’s like you’re back in high school.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM

No no no, you see, disagreeing with Madison”Conservative” makes you a hater. Even when he tosses the f-bomb at you, you’re the hater.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Ohh, thanks, I needed the Mad Con Comment Decoder book. ;)

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

It already has been. Just because men don’t follow Gods rules doesn’t mean that the rule is invalid, it just means man is in disobedience. Any unrepented sin is a huge problem for the sinner.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM

What about sins that aren’t committed, but contemplated? Or just thought about casually?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

You’re right that there are still laws on the books in many states. That was not the question, however. Do you think that adultery should be a crime?

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

It’s like you’re back in high school.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Yes. I think they never left. Thirty years old for one, the other three I assume much older, still “back there” in those “old daze.”

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I’m probably a bit closer to your views than Mad Con’s but your inane insults are a bit hard to endorse. I don’t do Facebook and I don’t believe you hate anyone. How about giving me the same respect.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

I was talking about any attacks against Lourdes, whom I haven’t found to be disingenuous or deceptive.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I won’t go so far as to call him a hater or deny his right to voice his opinion, he’s not alone, but I think it’s safe to say he isn’t winning any converts.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

There’s plenty of anti-homosexuality posters on HA who don’t operate on hatred. They don’t dedicate dozens of posts to attacking another commenter, calling them a coward, insulting and demeaning them over their username for pages and pages. They also don’t declare anyone who doesn’t agree with their hateful rhetoric a liberal.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I was talking about any attacks against Lourdes, whom I haven’t found to be disingenuous or deceptive.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Oh, okay. So liberal tactics are liberal when someone you disagree with uses them, but liberal tactics aren’t liberal when someone you agree with uses them.

Gotcha.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

What if a gay man wants to visit a sick partner in a hospital as a spouse? Or wants to settle a custody or inheritance matter in court? Or wants to obtain a marriage license?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

1) That should be permitted, no-brainer.
2) Gay people cannot inherit from partners. They can receive by devise, and I recommend everyone have a will whether gay or straight. Custody in the context of a gay relationship is a nightmare: basically the non-biological parent has zero rights to the child. Its a problem that’s not going to be solved by issuing a marriage license. We need real civil family law reform.
3) It’s not marriage. It’s something else. If you want to have a debate on whether we should place a civic blessing on gay unions in certain circumstances, we can have that discussion, but those unions are not and never will be “marriage”.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Please school me here. What liberal tactics did Lourdes use?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

No no no, you see, disagreeing with Madison”Conservative” makes you a hater. Even when he tosses the f-bomb at you, you’re the hater.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM

People who conflate profanity with hatred are f**king hilarious.

But yes, when Lourdes goes out of his way to harass and insult a commenter over his username, that’s indicative of hatred.

Oh…wait.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Is that what I did when I asked for Akzed’s opinion? My but I’m so impressed with how you know my mind so much better than I do myself.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I don’t assume to “know your mind” and I’d like to state here that you do not, indeed, have special powers that make it possible for you to know what I know in mine.

Geez, you Liberals…

Yes, you attempt, continuously, to find a loophole. Posing non-issue questions to attempt to interject issues you want to promote that you assume “violate” Christian ethics and Christian theology yet can be deemed “legal” if and when populations craft legislation accordingly.

What are your views on homosexual activism and as it applies to CPAC’s organization?

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Please school me here. What liberal tactics did Lourdes use?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Can’t actually refute the argument then attack the messenger.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM

See: JetBoy.

Have a nice day.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

No no no, you see, disagreeing with Madison”Conservative” makes you a hater. Even when he tosses the f-bomb at you, you’re the hater.

Akzed on February 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM

People who conflate profanity with hatred are f**king hilarious.

But yes, when Lourdes goes out of his way to harass and insult a commenter over his username, that’s indicative of hatred.

Oh…wait.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Ooh, profanity. Now it’s the tenth grade.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM

No insult or fight meant here. What about a non-homosexual friend just as close? That’s been going on since the beginning of time.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

An under-discussed point here, I think, is that this interview was on CBN. Palin IMO nicely threaded the needle of showing “tolerance” for debate, without endorsing the agenda of the group, on a network that will likely disagree with part of what she has to say. Courage!

cs89 on February 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM

…the more information that people have, the better.

And that’s the whole enchilada right there. Good on Palin!

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 10:22 AM

That really is the whole deal. Sarah wants to unite the country and Rebuild, Revive, and Renew.

We need EVERYONE who is willing to help to join in.

Sarah doesn’t do “identity politics.” She won’t divide everyone into neat little groups like the Rove wing of the party does, tailoring messages for target groups and not meaning a word of it.

Conservatism fits every man, woman, and child on the planet. Works every time it’s tried.

Time to get it on!

The Gipper, the Grizzly, and Skippy

gary4205 on February 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM

There’s plenty of anti-homosexuality posters on HA who don’t operate on hatred. They don’t dedicate dozens of posts to attacking another commenter, calling them a coward, insulting and demeaning them over their username for pages and pages. They also don’t declare anyone who doesn’t agree with their hateful rhetoric a liberal.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

And now it’s obsessiveness! On a t-shirt! With cursives!

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:05 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I’m still waiting.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:05 PM

1) That should be permitted, no-brainer.

Cool.

2) Gay people cannot inherit from partners. They can receive by devise, and I recommend everyone have a will whether gay or straight. Custody in the context of a gay relationship is a nightmare: basically the non-biological parent has zero rights to the child. Its a problem that’s not going to be solved by issuing a marriage license. We need real civil family law reform.

Perhaps. This probably applies more in the sense of adopted children – a situation in which the biological parent may or may not be known. I also realize there are rarer cases where a heterosexual couple has a child, only to have one of the parents come out later on, with those complicated issues you mentioned.

And as for inheritance, I was referring more to homosexuals an any offspring/adopted children as they may occur. As long as the process applies to them without any difference from that of a heterosexual couple, I’m OK.

3) It’s not marriage. It’s something else. If you want to have a debate on whether we should place a civic blessing on gay unions in certain circumstances, we can have that discussion, but those unions are not and never will be “marriage”.

So full rights and privileges granted to homosexual unions that are granted to heterosexuals (legally) as long as they agree not to call it a “marriage?” Or that the government doesn’t call it a “marriage?” Fine with me.

So what are we disagreeing about? The meaning of the word “marriage?” A rose by any other name, etc.?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

What are your views on homosexual activism and as it applies to CPAC’s organization?

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I’ll repeat it for you, as it seems you’re more interested in purifying H/A by weeding out subversive “liberals” (anyone who doesn’t want the Christian bible to be our law) than on actually reading what people have to say.

I am Federalist on the issue. I find no powers of the Federal government to regulate marriage. That makes me a Federalist on this issue and most others on the “gay agenda.”

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Mad Con, JetBoyo and Cindy Munford with Chewy the Lab running along beside you: The Gossip Train.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

You’re getting nuttier by the minute.

katy the mean old lady on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Hey, facebook is having a sale on gossip! Isn’t that cool? You can probably find, like, hey, five hundred people over there to gossip about and, hey, like, you can be cooler than them and stuff, you know.

Mad Con, JetBoyo and Cindy Munford with Chewy the Lab running along beside you: The Gossip Train.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

We all get our hair done in the same salon…Well, Lourdes, normally even when I’m vehemently disagreeing with someone, I do give out props for a civil, knowledgeable debate. But there’s none of that with you. Unfortunate.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Please school me here. What liberal tactics did Lourdes use?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Let’s see, JetBoy referred to me as “Frances” (the mule) and I responded with describing him as a “pig”.

Being a pig is what JetBoy was being with his denigration of me, under ruse of trying to be cool, or at least I guess that’s what he thinks acting like a pig is.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

We all get our hair done in the same salon…

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I was going to ask: do you know if Esteban is working today?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Newt doesn’t stand up proclaiming his pride in adultery, does he?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

When a politician parades around a 2nd or subsequent wife, he’s often proclaiming his pride in the results of his adulterous actions. In the eyes of God, he’s still married to the first wife–a first wife who might have been forced by the politician’s actions into an adulterous relationship with another man.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Nice speech. Really. And I agree with it too. However, can you honestly say that a lot of what has gone on this board comes from a position of love? This thread does not need the hate-filled left to work hard to make conservatives look like hate-filled bigots. We’re doing a good enough job of that ourselves. If I were gay, I would run far, far away from many of these posters and their world-view. Trust me, you won’t be walking nicely to the gates of hell with any gay person. They would’ve abandoned you long ago.

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM

You’re right, God said in proverbs that you could turn a person faster with a kind word than with vitriol. I try to not get nasty or emotional but as a human I have. I have to remind myself that the objective is to glorify Christ so that others will come to Him. But I’ve learned this over time. I know the tricks of the Hatefilled Left, they never address your points or convictions. The Hatefilled Left never says, “okay we’ve got a genuine impasse because your faith doesn’t permit you to accept our wants”. No we get the nasty vulgar over the top I’ll destroy you attack and if you dont believe me look at what happend after Prop 8 was passed here in CA. The Pro Gay Agenda Activist vicioulsy went after people who they could identify as having supported Prop 8 and got sone fired and generalky tried to destroy them. Those you fight back with all your might.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Mad Con, JetBoyo and Cindy Munford with Chewy the Lab running along beside you: The Gossip Train.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

We all get our hair done in the same salon…Well, Lourdes, normally even when I’m vehemently disagreeing with someone, I do give out props for a civil, knowledgeable debate. But there’s none of that with you. Unfortunate.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Again, too much information. I don’t care where any of you get your hair done and I doubt many others do, too.

You really would find liberty on facebook, with all the room to gossip and gossip and gossip there about your hair or whatever.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

She’s wrong on DADT but right on GOProud participation.

But she would be 1000000000000x better than the Wrecking Ball in the Oval office we have now.

PappyD61 on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Let’s see, JetBoy referred to me as “Frances” (the mule) and I responded with describing him as a “pig”.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

He said “Lighten up, Francis”. First of all, you’re illiterate. Secondly, you’re lacking in pop culture. Third, you’re being a homo.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM

When my mother-in-law’s husband passed away, his car was in his name only. According to the DMV the car became the property of the estate and all of his beneficiaries which included two daughters by a long ago previous marriage. There are plenty of things that need to be cleared up but obviously wills and powers of attorney are good things to have.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

She’s wrong on DADT but right on GOProud participation.

But she would be 1000000000000x better than the Wrecking Ball in the Oval office we have now.

PappyD61 on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

So would a lot of people.

Hell – even Clinton would be better.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

You really would find liberty on facebook, with all the room to gossip and gossip and gossip there about your hair or whatever.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

So now you want people you disagree with to leave the site. Huh.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I was going to ask: do you know if Esteban is working today?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Raphael is filling in for him…Esteban got a feather stuck in his throat *whistles whilst rolling eyeballs*

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Mad Con, JetBoyo and Cindy Munford with Chewy the Lab running along beside you: The Gossip Train.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

You’re getting nuttier by the minute.

katy the mean old lady on February 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

They have a seat available! Get on the train!

Again, I don’t recall asking what your thoughts on their Gossip Train was but I’m sure they’ll be eager to include you.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

So now you want people you disagree with to leave the site. Huh.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Apparently, in your delusions, you read just about anything and everything in comments.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Newt doesn’t stand up proclaiming his pride in adultery, does he?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

When a politician parades around a 2nd or subsequent wife, he’s often proclaiming his pride in the results of his adulterous actions. In the eyes of God, he’s still married to the first wife–a first wife who might have been forced by the politician’s actions into an adulterous relationship with another man.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Nonesense.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM

No insult or fight meant here. What about a non-homosexual friend just as close? That’s been going on since the beginning of time.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I think we should have the right to designate whatever people we want as our “next friend” or whatever to visit us in the hospital and help make medical decisions. But it’s not too hard to get a medical power of attorney, which does this. We can also leave our property to whomever we wish via a will.

As far as custody and marriage go, I believe marriage is an institution whose primary benefit is creating stronger ties between the people responsible for the upbringing of a child. I think this bond would be helpful to any two people who will commit to raise a child together, and government should do what it can (without violating basic liberties) to help keep that bond strong. So yes, I’d say any two adults should be able to make that commitment. I just wouldn’t call it marriage.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Raphael is filling in for him…Esteban got a feather stuck in his throat *whistles whilst rolling eyeballs*

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Holy sh*t!

X-D

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Let’s see, JetBoy referred to me as “Frances” (the mule) and I responded with describing him as a “pig”.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

He said “Lighten up, Francis”. First of all, you’re illiterate. Secondly, you’re lacking in pop culture. Third, you’re being a homo.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

You’re still nuts, Mad Con. And “Pop Culture” is the last thing on my mind, now or ever was.

So now you’re using “gay slurs”? I think you fell off your Gossip Train and landed in a Crapper.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Raphael is filling in for him…Esteban got a feather stuck in his throat *whistles whilst rolling eyeballs*

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Oh NOOOO! I’ll have to take him over a sparkly top hat. I’m sure that will make him feel better!

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM

You’re still nuts, Mad Con. And “Pop Culture” is the last thing on my mind, now or ever was.

So now you’re using “gay slurs”? I think you fell off your Gossip Train and landed in a Crapper.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Irony is a bitch, ain’t it?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 10