Posted on 02/09/2011 4:40:22 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
Deepening a rift ahead of the largest annual gathering of conservative activists in Washington this week, some of the movement’s top leaders have circulated a private memo urging that conservatism’s founding principles be recast to exclude gay rights groups from the Reagan coalition of economic, defense and social conservatives.
The memo, obtained by The Washington Times, was signed by about two dozen leaders, and was released just as the Conservative Political Action Conference is set to begin its most contentious session in years, riven with divisions over a gay rights Republican group that is helping sponsor the conference and the social conservatives who are trying to keep it out.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“All queer.
Gay is but PC speak for queer”
Absolutely. That’s why I put “gay” in quotation marks. I’m mocking “gay.”
I do, they want our votes and money, but otherwise its shut the hell up and do what we tell you and stay out of sight of our friends the liberals, you are an embarrassment to us.
Let them try and win without the conservative vote.
The second law of homosexuality:
To the mentally healthy (heterosexual), sex is something you do
To the mentally diseased ('homosexual'), sex is everything you are
The "gay" parts of your statements above are true, the rest of it doesn't matter. The faggots ignore everything after "gay"
Faggots always vote democrat because EVERYTHING they do is focused on their perversion, and the democrats are the party of perversion. Therefore faggots should never be recognized, or tolerated, within the ranks of decent people.
A little leaven taints the whole loaf.
Yes, the GOP should show more tolerance. I agree. But to persecuted Christians in their own suburbs and towns.
Great summary. There’s a C in CPAC for a reason. Today, the so-called conservative group looks too tribal. Identity politics is for liberals.
“So the question is: “If you oppose abortion, is it worth diluting or losing political support for conservative opinions and candidates among younger voters on abortion restriction, in to fight a clearly losing battle on “gay marriage”.
IMO, the answer should be obvious.”
Battles are not always chosen based on whether or not there is a prospect for victory. Opposing abortion and opposing gay marriage are both the same fight- good against evil, civilization against barbarism. Whether they are losing battles or not is an irrelevancy- they are battles that must be fought, because they involved very basic questions of right and wrong.
Its everyone’s right to vote to make a personal or political statement.
IMO this sort of decision is easiest to make when it does not have practical political consequences, as for example when no better outcome is possible no matter how you vote.
In this case, it may amount to deciding that “I would prefer to achieve neither of two important political goals to achieving one of them, if doing so allows me to vote my convictions on both.”
“The youth of today who 'get' abortion also 'get' homosexual marriage.”
Likely, that statement is correct.
However, it’s also the case increasing majorities of younger people oppose easy access to abortion and that increasing majorities of young people support “gay marriage” or civil unions –in your terms above younger people increasingly don’t 'get' abortion but do “get” homosexual marriage – so the two beliefs don’t in fact march in lockstep.
A lot of people on both the left and right find these trends difficult to accept (for example, many liberals refuse to accept that the increasing opposition to abortion can be “real”), but it is in fact what's happening.
“Public votes AGAINST gay marriage are always in the majority”
And that majority has been steadily eroding, especially over the last decade.
For example in 1990 polling was showing approval for homosexual marriage in California at around 25%, in 2000 Proposition 22 passed with 61% support, in 2008 Proposition 8 passed with 52% support, and the demography suggests that a narrow majority will favor its repeal by 2014, or 2016 at the latest.
Such demographics tell the story, in fact political demographers have produced estimates as to when the tide of popular opinion will turn in each state, on this basis the last group of “reddest” states will repeal such prohibitions in the early 2030s.
In fact, it likely won’t take that long as it’s going to politically and economically inconvenient for the last holdouts to maintain such prohibitions once they are clearly in the minority.
_____________________
IMO, the practical political question that needs to bet answered is: “To what extent does opposition to “homosexual rights” reduce the attractiveness of “pro-life” candidates to younger “pro gay rights” voters?
This may be a significant effect, or it may not.
AFAIK, no one knows the answer.
I question the backbone of anyone who says we should surrender while winning the war. Votes against Gay marriage are in the majority in EVERY election. Anyone who trusts liberal media polls of youth will trust a CNN presidential poll showing Al Gore and John Kerry winning. Only a RINO gives up character to be popular.
Homosexuals have something a politician can't resist..........expendable cash.
That's why the left latched onto the perverts immediately after they were released from the asylums. Money. No kids to support.
Now the right wants a few pieces of that silver.
Power and privilege. Both parties. It's all about power and privilege for themselves.
And that majority has been steadily eroding, especially over the last decade.
Only because the sheeple live in a state of learned helplessness. The left has managed to make the homosexuals a protected class. Once inside a voting booth, things change. People are allowed to speak freely.
Put homosexual marriage up for a vote in every state and see what happens when the PC police aren't allowed to get involved. Even the most liberal state in the union - California - voted it down twice!
I'd like to see states actually be allowed to vote on abortion as well. Things change behind that curtain. Left wing propaganda loses it's power there (which is why they always use liberal judges instead).
There should not be any conservative factions, whether based on race, sex, religion or sexual tendencies. No real conservative would ever introduce themselves as a “hetrosexual” or “straight” conservative, so there is no need for those who are homosexual to do so. A conservative’s sexual preference or inclination should have no bearing on their position on the issues. If it does, then they are not conservative.
Conservatives do not need to address private recreational mating behavior.
All are treated the same. Marriage is the same for all. (one man one woman and no “love” test). No special rights based on orgasm methods.
Any group that claims to be homosexual and conservative is not the latter.
The MSM has successfully spun CPAC into the DC version of a homosexual pride parade. To hear the media spin, cpac is sponsored, run, and organized by homosexuals.
how about wifeswapperproud
leather proud
leashproud
youdon’twanttoknowproud...
ahh but that is why the enablers and DC beltway is trying to balkanize conservatives into factions.
If there is a core set of principles they can’t make excuses for their candidates RINO conduct.
the GOP effete elites need factions to hold their power. IOW divide and conquer.
Good vs Evil is not their path to personal power.
You are right. The whole concept of hyphenated conservatives contradicts what the word conservative actually means.
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.