"Bring It! I Love It!" CPAC Speaker Gets Booed For Condemning CPAC For Inviting Gay Organization

We should have a new message to gays: we oppose gay marriage on Constitutional grounds.

How about opposing homosexual marriage on Judeo-Christian values - you know, those same values that America & our Constitution was founded.

btw, it's not "gay" to choose the perverted lifestyle of homosexuality that God has stated is an abomination. Of course, if you reject God and His morals, than you're no better than an animal without a conscience.

Calm down. These attacks on Ann Coulter are ridiculous. While there are a few issues on which I disagree with Coulter, she is a Conservative and she is effective. I doubt you will find anyone you agree with on every issue. Maybe she believe Romney is the only one who can win and certainly is an improvement of Obama/Hillary/McCain.

For example, I consider Ronald Reagan a Conservative and like him. However, I found his amnesty decision outrageous.

Even if the GOP wrote into its platform a celebration of homosexual marriage and even performed one at the convention, we still wouldn't get any more of the homo vote than we get now

This is just completely untrue. Lots of gay men are conservatively inclined on economic questions, and on a surprising measure of social questions, as well. Gay men who are educated and successful are just as likely to have a problem with taxes and regulation as anyone else. Every gay man and lesbian knows precisely where he would stand in the Caliphate and while some are sufficiently blinded by ideology not to recognize, many do manage to recognize that Western victory in the War on Terror is critical to their basic self interest.

Are we ever going to get the majority of gay vote? Probably not, just like legacy and cultural reasons keep up from getting the majority of Jewish vote or the Irish Catholic vote even though in some sense we "should." However, we are far more likely to get better minorities among gay voters than we are among African American or Hispanics or unmarried women, who have much stronger pragmatic ties to Democrats than gays do.

(This is to say nothing about the simple fact that a whole heck of a lot of the Republican and Conservative activists, office holders, and advisers you think are straight are, in fact, gay men of some greater or lesser degree of closeting.)

All of this said, though, I'd still think that we need to spend more energy wondering why we are losing the Asian vote, which is going to be a disaster of tremendous proportions for us if not reversed, given the increasing percentage of Asians in the population and the fact that Asians are going to comprise a very sizable share of the economic and intellectual elite of this country in not very long at all.

I agree with you 100%. There is, however, a difference between a broad policy of advancing individual freedom, including on the issues you list above, and being opposed to "the homosexual lifestyle" as many conservatives are.

When "the homosexual lifestyle" includes the demand for freedom to do things such as THIS , it has nothing to do with being conservative.

It's the FIRST right that the homosexual agenda wants to deny us. So the term "gay rights" is a parlor trick in two ways. First of all, it's not about homosexuality, it's about OPEN homosexualty. Second, it's not about endowing rights, it's about DENYING RIGHTS.

The gay agenda within the Republican party is an oxymoron. Limited government principle would make irrelevant, any place and any time, the private sexual activities of any legal adults.

Your entire post: well said!

"This is just completely untrue. Lots of gay men are conservatively inclined on economic questions, and on a surprising measure of social questions, as well. "

For the purposes of discussion only, let's stipulate that everything you've said is entirely true. I'll go back to something I said in a earlier post on this thread. Gay marriage is about virtually everything other than marriage.

The legislative initiatives that I've seen proposing legalizing gay marriage have been dozens of pages long, sometimes hundreds of pages long. You have to ask yourself, "why in the world would a law that gives homosexuals the same marriage "rights" as heterosexuals have to be hundreds of pages long?". This is especially troubling considering the law that gives all citizens the right to speak freely without reprisal from the government is only a paragraph, just two sentences or so.

Gay marriage advocacy is about so much more than just the right of two men or two women to marry; It's about the broader public accepting the homosexuality lifestyle and codifying that acceptances into statutory law. Conservatives, nor Republicans, shouldn't be party to such a movement, IMHO.

Subversion has been a problem for some time. Look up the Craig Spence male prostitution/blackmail ring. It ensnared Pres. GHWB's head of the office of White House Personnel, and who knows who else. There was a great FR thread on the topic, but it had all the WashTimes articles and so had to be removed.

That said, anti-discrimination law has decapitated most conservative institutional leadership outside of the churches. This is going to be an ugly fight, especially if GOP activists are more concerned about what their cool gay friend thinks than about ending government suppression of moral conservatives.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.