About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-Wing Media Begin Closing Ranks Against GOProud In CPAC Feud

February 10, 2011 1:28 pm ET — 78 Comments

Following GOProud's invitation to participate in the annual conservative conference CPAC, many social conservatives objected, with several groups--including the Heritage Foundation and the Media Research Center--vowing to boycott the event, in part because of gay conservative group's inclusion. As CPAC begins, many in the right-wing media have taken sides against GOProud.

Several Right-Wing Organizations Have Boycotted CPAC Over GOProud's Sponsorship

Social Conservative Groups Boycott CPAC Over GOProud Sponsorship. Following news that the gay conservative group GOProud would be a sponsor of CPAC, several conservative groups announced that they will be boycotting the conference. According to Slate, these groups include both social conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, and general conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. Additionally, the Media Research Council's Brent Bozell announced his organization would be boycotting, claiming "We've been there 25 years, since our inception. To bring in a 'gay' group is a direct attack on social conservatives, and I can't participate in that." [Slate, 01/07/11, 02/08/11]

Right-Wing Media Claim GOProud Is "Not ...Conservative" And "Seek[s] To Brainwash America's Youth"

Washington Times Op-Ed: GOProud "Seek[s] To Brainwash America's Youth." In a February 9 Washington Times op-ed titled, "Defend CPAC from phony conservatives," Scott Magill, executive director of Veterans in Defense of Liberty, called GOProud and the American Conservative Union "enemies of the American tradition." Magill further stated that GOProud "seek[s] to brainwash America's youth through the school system by inserting favorable references to homosexuality in the curriculum as early as kindergarten." Magill claimed "Our group is going to CPAC to fulfill our sworn and solemn oath to 'defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.' Unfortunately, the nation's pre-eminent grass-roots conservative gathering has become a showcase for the enemies of the American tradition." [Washington Times, 02/09/11]

Erickson: "GOProud Is Not A Conservative Organization." In a February 10 post on Red State, Erick Erickson claimed that GOProud "is not a conservative organization" and criticized GOProud co-founder Chris Barron for calling conservative lawyer Cleta Mitchell a "bigot." From Red State:

I have, for me, shown an amazing amount of restraint in keeping my mouth shut on an issue about which I can stay silent no longer -- GOProud and CPAC.

[...]

Those groups and people who have sat out CPAC this year have done so not because they hate the gays, as Grover Norquist and GOProud would have you believe, but because GOProud is not a conservative organization and its agenda is not a conservative agenda.

For that, they are called losers and nasty bigots.

These losers and nasty bigots have done a lot more for the conservative movement than GOProud. And I am very happy to call them my friends.

This week, I'd much rather be with them than be at CPAC. [Red State, 02/10/11]

Red State: "Gays Now Seeking To Disrupt Conservatives." In a February 9 Red State.com post, contributor Nikitas3 argued that, "[t]he gay power movement has made many advances in the last 20 years and now it is seeking to disrupt the conservative movement," by participating in GOProud. From the post:

If GOProud were really interested in conservative values - which it is not - it would not allow its group presence to disrupt the CPAC conference as it is doing. Homosexuals and lesbians would simply attend the conference quietly as individuals without pushing their identity.

But homosexuality is NOT a conservative agenda item so therefore GOProud as a group should not be embraced by CPAC. It is a liberal agenda item that activist gays now want to insert into the conservative movement.

[...]

And if some conservatives say that we should court the gay vote and should accept GOProud, they have it backwards. Because homosexuals need the conservative agenda of growth and freedom much more than we need to court gay votes. And they are welcome to our ideas. But they are not welcome to bully us and inject themselves into our agenda which is focused on the well-being of the nation, not on special rights for special groups. [RedState.com, 2/7/11]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by curiousindependent (February 10, 2011 1:33 pm ET)
      24  
      How is it that any minority votes Republican?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by gayinmt (February 10, 2011 1:41 pm ET)
        3  
        I really don't know. I just don't get it. I never realized that I was such a detriment to freedom, you know, by trying to live my life as I see fit. You know, freely.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by villabolo (February 10, 2011 3:52 pm ET)
        7  
        Masochism and low self esteem?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by sodium (February 10, 2011 4:59 pm ET)
        3  
        Collective feeble-mindedness?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Quixote (February 10, 2011 11:00 pm ET)
        5  
        Stockholm syndrome.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mamaearth (February 12, 2011 10:36 am ET)
          1
        That's all a "minority" needs to vote republican, is a sense of self-worth, pride and the knowledge that with the government out of the way, anyone can succeed.

        There are many African American and Latino conservatives. The problem is progressives can't control them, they think for themselves. They don't follow liberal "talking points."

        What would progressives do if they couldn't keep minorities in their place? Democrats have had decades (of congressional control)to end poverty, homelessness and uplift the minority community. They haven't accomplished their goals.

        Ever wonder why?...The democrats would lose their voting base, if minorities achieve the middle/upper class dream!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dogbreath (February 10, 2011 1:44 pm ET)
      17  
      I'm sorry, but why do these folks in GoPROUD even bother to try to stay with the GOP? Wow. The hatred and intolerance is so deep in the GOP that you can cut it with a knife.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 1:48 pm ET)
        15 1
        It is curious. I guess it's because of that old notion that you can do more good from within than from the outside looking in, but why would you align yourself with any national political party that has so many of its leaders shoveling such disrespect your way?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (February 10, 2011 2:13 pm ET)
          2 2
          I don't know. Maybe they have some weird belief that the goal of achieving equality is something for which one must struggle, even against ridicule and hostility? Such deviants.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dkylep (February 10, 2011 2:32 pm ET)
            7 1
            I think I tend to agree with Right ON about this one. I respect that they are struggling against ridicule and hostility, but there are some organizations that simply cannot be altered by internal methods. A black person could not alter the workings of the Klu Klux Klan, for instance, even if they could join and just wanted to do so to struggle against the hostility encountered there.

            I'm not certain why this group would continue to be aligned with ANY group that sought to repress subject them to the type of language and derision that is happening here.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by vysotsky (February 10, 2011 2:45 pm ET)
              5 1
              The don't-go-where-you're-not-wanted approach hasn't worked out all that well for gays and lesbians.

              The comparison to the KKK is an interesting one. A black person certainly could not alter the workings of the KKK, but do you think right ON would agree that the KKK is to black people what the GOP is to anyone who isn't straight? The KKK doesn't claim to champion equality of all individuals. The GOP does.

              If the GOP can't live up to its own standards, then GOProud is doing good work exposing the party as hypocritical and fraudulent. If the GOP can come to accept a group that's interested in the rights of homosexual people, then they will have been changed for the better. But those are big "if"s.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 2:53 pm ET)
                3 1
                Good points. And of course there are GOPers, and people visible within the party, who don't share the "gay is bad" clubbing that many of their more vocal members do. Perhaps they are the ones GOProud is appealing to or give them cause for movement and hope.

                I think they are just going at the GOP with an in-your-face attitude by saying we are here, we are conservative, we are not left wing, and we will not just shrink away in silence and passiveness anymore. And as I said, that deserves respect. I guess, for me, I am just not that invested in political parties and their structural machinations to join any of them. I am an admitted cynic when it comes to that.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dogbreath (February 10, 2011 3:01 pm ET)
                  5  
                  I respect these folks at GoProud for trying to fight the good fight, I just know if it is worth their efforts. In a time when the GOP is hyper-partisian and reaching further into its traditional right-wing bag of tricks, I am certain these folks stand a chance. Kudos on them for trying though.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by dkylep (February 10, 2011 4:18 pm ET)
                2  
                Good points. I guess I feel that they're wasting time and energy on GOP people who don't have any better use for them than to spit in their collective faces. The GOProud people would, I think, be better served if they didn't associate with a group like that.

                However, I can respect the fact as well that if they feel that they belong to the group and wish to fight for it, to try and make it a more open and accepting bunch, that they're willing to do so.

                I think perhaps my feelings about this issue revolve around my pessimism that these gay people will do anything to alter the balance of power or feelings within the larger GOP. It's not pleasant to imagine anybody wasting their time and life trying to change something that resists it because it's bad for their bottom line and their total votes. Still, I suppose that if you don't attempt something, it will never even have a remote chance at change.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 5:23 pm ET)
                2 1
                I respect them holding to their core beliefs. They seem to think of the Republican party as a party for liberty and less spending. That has not been the case for some time, but I would love it if the other rational minds within the party would speak up like the gays have. They have allowed their party to be taken over by bigots and madmen. I would love to see the adults take it back so we can get back to some actual debate over legislation in this country.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 2:37 pm ET)
            4 1
            I do respect them for going into the lion's den in an attempt to show the GOP that their ignorance and fear of gay people is really without merit. And perhaps they feel more politically aligned with their agenda than with the Democrats, I can certainly understand that - gay people are not some monolithic group.

            And it's one thing to work and struggle for policies and issues that you're passionate about, but when the group you are angling to be a part of cannot simply give you the basic decent human respect that should be afforded everyone, then I can't see where dialogue can even begin.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by vysotsky (February 10, 2011 3:04 pm ET)
              4  
              I don't mean to portray this as a binary or simple matter. And certainly I wouldn't criticize GOProud if they decided to end any affiliation with CPAC or the GOP in general after this kind of response. But consider the case history of how discrimination has actually changed for many minorities.

              Jackie Robinson faced some pretty awful disdain when he started playing for the Dodgers. Other teams threatened to strike. I wouldn't describe a good deal of the treatment he received on the field and from the stands in terms of basic decency and respect. He could have very well decided that the abuse just wasn't worth it, and that he was just serving as a target for public bigotry. And I honestly wouldn't have blamed him if he did. But the major leagues did stand behind him, and he did make it easier for those who followed him.

              CPAC did the right thing inviting and accepting GOProud in spite of harsh opposition. And hopefully the GOP will change for the better because of this conflict. But if the possibility of including a group like GOProud cannot be tolerated, if homophobia turns out to be a core component of the Republican Party, then so much the better that the GOP should own up to its inherent institutional bigotry now and publicly.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 3:06 pm ET)
                1 1
                No argument, well said.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by vysotsky (February 10, 2011 3:09 pm ET)
                     
                  Thanks, and for what it's worth, I apologize for my tone in my first comment to you in this thread. You didn't deserve to have that sarcasm directed at you, especially not for voicing a position that I can and do respect.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 5:24 pm ET)
              1 1
              Unfortunately for gays and for a lot of groups in this country, we all seem to have accepted the idea that we are only allowed to have two real political parties in this country.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 5:21 pm ET)
          2 1
          Yeah, I think they probably started within the Republican party because they hold libertarian beliefs and want some level of fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, the modern day Republican party does not care about either of these. They have been hijacked by the religious right and now by the teabaggers, which are really just people who seem to believe whatever they are told to believe by Fox and hate radio.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jameswwiggin (February 11, 2011 7:00 am ET)
        1  
        They bother because they share the right-wing, conservative vision of America, other than the fact that they 1) don't hate gays, 2) don't want to make being gay illegal, and 3) don't want to force their opinions on everybody else in America (at least as far as being gay goes). That, by the way, is why all the hypocritical right wing politicians and religious leaders who enjoy having anonymous gay sex in restrooms, etc., don't come out of the closet--they know they will not be accepted by their conservative constituencies and are ashamed of themselves.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by peebs755 (February 10, 2011 1:45 pm ET)
      9  
      I've never understood how any minority would call themselves republican. Some have told me they're fiscal conservatives. Okay, but this party is actively working AGAINST you. Be a fiscally conservative Democrat. At least you'll be in a party that isn't trying to repress you.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (February 10, 2011 1:59 pm ET)
      3  
      From Red State: "
      If GOProud were really interested in conservative values - which it is not - it would not allow its group presence to disrupt the CPAC conference as it is doing. Homosexuals and lesbians would simply attend the conference quietly as individuals without pushing their identity."

      Hey Red State..many gays have done that at CPAC for years and may just believe that their time to speak is now.

      Red State...interesting how gays have been to CPAC with conservative beliefs and CPAC hasn't been changed one bit. I guess gayness isn't catchy. You people are bigots..the end.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (February 10, 2011 2:05 pm ET)
      11  
      "Because homosexuals need the conservative agenda of growth and freedom much more than we need to court gay votes."
      Does that include the freedom to get married and have it legally recognized as a real marriage?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by beDecent (February 10, 2011 3:27 pm ET)
        6  
        That stood out to me as well. What freedoms can the conservative agenda possibly give homosexuals?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ImaBore (February 10, 2011 2:48 pm ET)
      3  
      I thought Republicans wanted to be known as the Big Tent Party.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (February 10, 2011 3:11 pm ET)
        7  
        Clearly not anymore. It is interesting that here in Colorado the head of the state GOP has quit, voicing his frustration on the "purity tests" that Republicans are requiring of the people they are putting up for office. It was demonstrated here during the last election when the GOP put up Ken Buck against a very vulnerable Michael Bennett. Gale Norton, a Republican, would have been a much better candidate, appealing muchmore to independents. But because she supported Referendum C, a provision that allowed the government to keep collected taxes and use them in educational expenditures, she was not considered conservative enough.

        The GOP is going to make themselves completely irrelevent as a major party if they continue down this path. It is certainly not looking good for them here in Colorado.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (February 11, 2011 2:46 pm ET)
        1  
        I thought Republicans wanted to be known as the Big Tent Party

        That GOP advertising slogan only applies during election season.

        Look for the "Big Tent" campaign closer to 2012.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by o rly (February 11, 2011 3:42 pm ET)
        2  
        They need a big tent because of all the overweight white men clustered inside.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by syrabell (February 10, 2011 3:02 pm ET)
      2  
      This division in the GOP ranks is looking like the Democrats in 1969. The issue then was the war in Viet Nam. Could this non-inclusive behavior lead to a loss for the conservative movement?

      I find it interesting how someone can say that sexual preference prevents someone from being a fiscal conservative. So much for standing for small government and less spending. This behavior looks more like the GOP being a religious based conservative party.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (February 10, 2011 3:13 pm ET)
        3  
        Clearly, many in the GOP are more concerned about religious issues than fiscal ones.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by LiberalEagle422 (February 10, 2011 5:06 pm ET)
          1  
          ^ this. This is one of the reasons I really dislike the republican party. They will defer to their religious values over anything else. Very disturbing considering there is no established religion in the United States. Or at least, there's not supposed to be one.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by elemental89048 (February 10, 2011 3:31 pm ET)
         
      It is astonishing to me that anyone who is NOT a rich white male could vote republican. Or as I call them, the "Regressive" party.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (February 10, 2011 3:33 pm ET)
        9
      If CPAC chooses to invite GOProud it's their business and they can face the consequences.

      For those that oppose the invite...it's also their own business and they to can face the consequences. They don't have a "right" to attend. They have the right to withdraw their support and start their on program.

      Admittedly knowing little about GP's agenda I have taken a cursory look at their mission statement and find little that I have any major disagreement with...except of course, their homosexual agenda.

      Despite that disagreement...I think they have a legitimate voice in the conservative movement and should be included in the national conversation.

      Their support of gay marriage is a natural outcropping of their sexual orientation. But I can't agree with it. Marriage is for a man and a woman...period. But I have also said many times I could favor legislation on civil unions...according them basic human rights. But I go no further than that...particularly in promoting homosexuality as normal behavior.

      Homosexuality is natural occurring but it certainly is not normal. A two-headed calf is a natural occurrence but cannot be classed as normal (calm down...I'm not equating homosexuals with sideshow attractions)...just pointing out that the small percentage of the general population that are homosexual means it is not the norm.

      But as GOProud asserts...they are still human beings with the rights afforded to all in the constitution...but I can't go any further than that.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (February 10, 2011 3:45 pm ET)
        9  
        Homosexuality is natural occurring but it certainly is not normal. A two-headed calf is a natural occurrence but cannot be classed as normal (calm down...I'm not equating homosexuals with sideshow attractions)...just pointing out that the small percentage of the general population that are homosexual means it is not the norm.

        If your comparison to the two-headed calf wasn't meant to imply that you regard homosexuality as pathological -- and I trust that you didn't -- then I take you mean that homosexuals simply aren't a numerical majority in the population when you say it is "not normal."

        There are countless other traits and behaviors that are not normal in that sense: blue eyes, left handedness, a passion for smooth jazz, etc... Unless you're actually arguing that homosexuality is a pathology, would you agree that people who aren't straight are no more "abnormal" than left handed people?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 4:27 pm ET)
          8  
          My son's left-handed because that's the way his brain is wired. My late cousin was homosexual. He was that way because that's the way his brain was wired. Neither of them are abnormal, they are just who they are.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by vysotsky (February 10, 2011 4:39 pm ET)
            6  
            This is why it's extremely important to distinguish between a statistical notion of norms, social norms, and other notions of normality which are all quite different. There are a number of cases, in fact, in which the statistical norm is not the social norm.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (February 10, 2011 5:12 pm ET)
            4  
            Not to mention blue eyes and blond hair. They're hardly abnormal but less common because they're recessive traits.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 3:51 pm ET)
        5 1
        Wesley,

        Would you be in favor of states getting out of the marriage business altogether and leaving that to religious institutions? Remove the word marriage, and perform only state sanctioned civil unions for any two consenting adults that choose to enter into that legal arrangement.

        Let the churches decide who they will marry.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (February 10, 2011 4:04 pm ET)
            9
          I could buy into that if it were my only choice...but I've grappled with your question many times and I always get back to the idea that marriage between a man and a woman is an important fabric in our society...and yes, as a society we've treated the sanctity of marriage pretty poorly.

          But I think I'll stick with keeping traditional, state sanctioned marriage and offering civil unions for homosexuals.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 4:36 pm ET)
            5 1
            Sanctioning and condoning monogamous committed relationships is an important fabric in our society, I would absolutely agree with that. I just don't see how gay "marriage" weakens that fabric in any way, and those opposed to marriage have never been able to convince me that it does. In this case, separate but equal is not equal, for marriage affords more rights to couples than civil unions do.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (February 10, 2011 4:42 pm ET)
                4
              -- marriage affords more rights to couples than civil unions do. --

              How so? I would support full legal rights to civil unions that marriage entails.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 4:46 pm ET)
                4 1
                Wes,

                Tax filings. Medical decisions in many states. Death benefits. Among others.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (February 10, 2011 4:54 pm ET)
                    4
                  That's why I'd support civil unions that fix those inequities.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 5:04 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    That's why I think if it's basically just the word "marriage" that some object to, that is why I say remove it completely and leave that up the church to perform as they see fit. Civil unions for all. I just cannot see the objection to that, it would seem fair to all and satisfy those who want that term kept to their traditions.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by wesley (February 10, 2011 5:07 pm ET)
                      1 3
                      I got your drift and it's reasonable...we're just not going to agree on this issue.

                      But I'll still invite you to my own personal CPAC convention.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 5:34 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      Yeah, then why even bother. If they are really both the exact same civil institution, then why bother calling them something different? Pick one name and go with it. Who cares?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by rwgate (February 10, 2011 5:56 pm ET)
                      2  
                      When the church performs a wedding the bridal couple signs two pieces of paper (both witnessed). One, the marriage certificate, you can hang on the wall. The other is between the State and the couple, and until it's signed, it ain't a legal wedding.

                      If the semantics are so important, reserve the term "marriage" for the church. But all unions are civil, and there should be no distinction in the rights and responsibilities of either one, no matter what you call it.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (February 10, 2011 5:45 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Simply calling it a civil union does not address one very glaring issue: the verbiage of numerous federal and state laws and regulations that pertain to marriage.

                    "Sorry, the law clearly says 'married,' not 'civilly united'. Therefore it can't be applied to you. DENIED!"

                    Unless it's called marriage, you're not fixing the inequities. You're providing loopholes.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by my4cents (February 10, 2011 10:01 pm ET)
                       
                    Why not treat everyone the same, instead of, different tax rates for married, filing separately, filing single?
                    Why does the govt. Federal or state, need to decide how much tax I pay or what benefits I get, based on my marital status?
                    Treat every person the same. I make money, tax me, but tax me the same whether I am single, married or hsaring a house with someone else.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 5:33 pm ET)
              3 2
              I used to argue this with my Catholic relatives all of the time when I was a young man. Why wouldn't we want to promote monogamy amongst homosexuals? I personally don't care who is or is not monogamous and I am not sure that marriage has a whole heck of a lot to do with monogamy for many people. But, especially for those most afraid of the gays, I would think they would want to promote monogamy amongst them.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (February 10, 2011 5:51 pm ET)
                2 1
                Yet the argument you always hear is that it weakens the institution of marriage, or redefines it, or opens it up to giving gays special rights, etc. None of which I have ever heard reasonable supporting evidence to back that up.

                Many straight people trash and disrespect the institution of marriage all the time, with multiple divorces, it's a sacred commitment when they get married, but it becomes a throwaway nuisance when it gets in the way - so poof, let a court end the marriage, get rid of it. And gays are not asking for any special rights, just the same rights. And redefining an institution to be inclusive and not discriminate against someone is progress and the right thing to do.

                Until I see a legitimate practical reason that does harm to society in general for not allowing gays the benefit to marry their partner as their straight brothers and sisters do, I will continue to support equality for all.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 6:14 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  Exactly. And, history is clear here. Eventually, equal rights will be afforded. In this country, equal rights always wins out in the end. It is one of the things I am most proud of about my country.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by pete592 (February 10, 2011 6:21 pm ET)
                     
                  And by Wesley's own account, we're talking about a "small percentage of the general population." An even smaller percentage of which will ever get married.

                  Even if it was a "significant percentage" I still don't see what the threat is.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 9:07 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    None. Because, as righton says, no one is seeking special rights. Just the same rights afforded to everyone else.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Vesus (February 11, 2011 10:21 am ET)
                1  
                Yes, you also hear that homosexuals are somehow far more promiscuous than straight people, and apparently they run around spreading AIDS as fast as they can.

                Obviously it's nonsense, but wouldn't marriage solve the promiscuity "problem" that conservatives have contrived?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by cyberstrike (February 13, 2011 12:27 pm ET)
            1  
            I could buy into that if it were my only choice...but I've grappled with your question many times and I always get back to the idea that marriage between a man and a woman is an important fabric in our society...and yes, as a society we've treated the sanctity of marriage pretty poorly.

            But I think I'll stick with keeping traditional, state sanctioned marriage and offering civil unions for homosexuals.


            Marriage is NOT a religious act, it's a state act with religion as window dressing. People got married because their families needed the money, to seal an alliance between countries, just to be comforted, etc.

            Throw out the religion and it's a simple matter of basic civil rights.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 5:30 pm ET)
          1 1
          "Remove the word marriage, and perform only state sanctioned civil unions for any two consenting adults that choose to enter into that legal arrangement.

          Let the churches decide who they will marry." - Righton

          Exactly. What is the difference? Why would someone be offended by the state sanctioning a marriage but not a civil union? It seems so bizarre to me. What does the state recognizing a civil institution have to do with a religious institution? Nothing to me. I am married and I never had to step foot into a church to do so.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by syrabell (February 10, 2011 7:18 pm ET)
          1  
          I say let the government call it marriage and let the churches call them religious sanctioned unions or what ever they want to call them. If it is only the words that matter then I want mine to still be called a marriage and let those religious people call theirs something else.

          Marriage predates the Christian religion so if historical significance matters the word marriage should stay for government versions and religions should find their own term, then they can make their own rules.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 10, 2011 4:25 pm ET)
        7  
        Yes, you did equate homosexuals with sideshow attractions.

        Homosexuality is natural and it is normal. It's just not YOUR norm (I'm assuming) or mine.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rtwmd1230 (February 10, 2011 5:22 pm ET)
        6  
        "Homosexuality is natural occurring but it certainly is not normal."

        An IQ above 180 is not normal. Being able to play the Beethoven piano sonatas is not normal. Being able to run a four-minute mile is not normal.

        But what in the world does any of that have to do with our legal system?

        I honestly don't think you have a point here at all.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2011 5:28 pm ET)
        1 1
        I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, wesley, and assume you are saying they are not the majority when you claim they are not "normal". It is an odd argument to make and not really sure how it enhances your argument. What does a majority or "normal" have to do with the right to get married? Strange.

        I don't think they have a right to be invited anywhere. But, the Republicans cannot pretend they have a voice in the conservative movement while also excluding them. That is pretty simple. And, what is the difference between civil unions and marriages that makes it acceptable to you? Seems very odd from a civil perspective.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (February 11, 2011 9:33 am ET)
        1  
        You are NOT the person who gets to unilaterally say what is and what is NOT mormal. The small population of the world that is left handed does not make THAT abnormal. Your take is pure bigotry
        Report Abuse
      • Author by TheWillofThePeople (February 12, 2011 8:55 am ET)
        1  
        Wesley:

        Homosexuality is natural occurring but it certainly is not normal...just pointing out that the small percentage of the general population that are homosexual means it is not the norm.


        I think you are confusing "abnormal" and "atypical." Homosexuality is well within the range of normal behaviors. However, because gays are a relatively small part of the population, homosexuality would be considered atypical.

        I hope you're not missing the distinction on purpose, but it's hard to tell...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by m_mayhem (February 10, 2011 4:38 pm ET)
      1  
      Why would you GO to the republicans and be PROUD to associate yourself with people that hate your very existence?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Imbecile (February 10, 2011 5:08 pm ET)
      9  
      I see absolutely no contradiction with being gay and being conservative.

      However, being gay and being Republican? That just makes absolutely no sense at all.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Fallacyhunter (February 12, 2011 10:00 am ET)
           
        100% agree. And of course one can be super liberal on social issues and fiscally conservative and vice versa...yet the shamefully simple-minded binary worldview of the GOP would have you believe otherwise...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by John Hoffman (February 10, 2011 5:40 pm ET)
         
      That the Republicans would toss gay people out of their "big tent" is hardly a surprise. They have already kicked out brown,black, and other not-white people. They've given the boot to people who believe in women's rights. They chased away non-religious people. I have no idea for whom they're making all that room in their "big tent," but the echo is getting pretty nice! I am waiting for the happy day when the Tea Party people realize they're being played like a cheap banjo!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Vesus (February 11, 2011 10:14 am ET)
         
      Way to go Republicans, just keep bickering and dividing your party over stupidity. Everyone here will be totally heartbroken when your xenophobia dooms the party again in 2012.

      Equality for all! Except for everyone who is gay, non-white, non-christian, etc.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Aries411 (February 11, 2011 11:46 am ET)
         
      Veterans in defense of liberty?
      I guess That means in defense of your rights as long as your straight.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Provasek (February 12, 2011 3:01 am ET)
         
      These gay people who support the Republican party must be S&M bottoms.

      "Please hit me again, Sir"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Fallacyhunter (February 12, 2011 9:57 am ET)
      1  
      I saw Cenk Uygur interview the founder of GOProud and Barron's reason for being a Republican seemed to be that Democrats have thrown "gays under the bus." Huh? So the only merit for the GOP that he can state is that Republicans didn't do that? Um, Chris, hate to break it to you but the GOP is cheerfully driving the bus right over you...they think you're a sub-human.

      Another example of the GOP's amazing ability to get people to vote against their interests time and time again. Sad.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cyberstrike (February 13, 2011 12:32 pm ET)
           
        I saw that too, and I think that the GOProud Founder needs to look at the facts, and while a very few in the GOP are for gay rights the vast majority of the Democrats are for gay rights.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tbob777 (February 12, 2011 11:57 am ET)
         
      You can't be conservative and be gay by their religious defininiton. Too bad. You could be a conservative gay democrat. Does that tell y'all something? Why do they even bother with the Repubs and conservatives? They are for the most part bigots.
      Report Abuse

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube Reddit