Skip to comments.S.E. Cupp, CPAC, and Homosexuals
Posted on 03/18/2013 11:15:27 AM PDT by neverdem
Author and MSNBC host S.E. Cupp made news in the run-up to CPAC 2013 by withdrawing as a speaker from the annual conservative confab. Her complaint against CPAC is that it would not allow pro-homosexual "marriage" organizations to sponsor the event.
Cupp identifies herself as a "proponent of gay rights," and on MSBNC she said "marriage equality" is a "major issue Republicans can no longer seem to avoid."
"CPAC's decision to sideline GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans makes me increasingly uncomfortable,"she said."Until the conference stops shaming some of its most valuable advocates, it's unfortunately not an event I can take part in."
Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia, last summer. "It's a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry," she said. "But I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist."
This admission "causes my brain some trouble," Gessen says, "and part of why it causes me trouble is that fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there -- because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie."
How will it change? Gessen explains: "I have three kids who have five parents, more or less. . . . I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage."
"Marriage equality" becomes "marriage elasticity," with the ultimate goal of "marriage extinction."...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
then she is not a conservative plain and simple.
SHe is either a libertarian or a liberal but she is not a republican and the lieks of her can go and piss off and have their own convention, their own primary.
I’m sick of these idiots telling us that we shoudl change.
maybe if she got away form her elitist cocktail parties then she woudl know we don;t like having feces sex a base for marriage
I heard Rand Paul say abotu marriage lase week which got the turd pokers excited and then I heard him say we have to change at CPAC, and i just hope he;s not his father but in a more polished way and the way he;s goimg it seems he is
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand the State should get out of the marriage business in terms of special economic benefits from marriage etc...
On the other hand maintaining a culture DEPENDS on stable families and stable two parent NORMAL marriages are a KEYSTONE to a civil society and should be promoted and protected at all costs.
I also think that EVERY church has the right NOT to marry anyone who they don’t want getting married.
I also think that EVERY employer has a right to define what they see as a benefit and the parameters that surround it, ie. you work for a christian company you won’t get same-sex marriage benefits unless they want to offer them.
Two unmarried heterosexual people can live in sin all they want, is that not a good enough example for the homosexual couples out there....?
I think i end up more on the side that Government should get out of the business of CONTROLLING marriage be it the definition of such or the punishment of those who don’t want to fall in line of the progressive version of marriage.
Among G.O.P. Voters, Little Support for Same-Sex “Marriage”
There are many “Christians” feeling the same way—make Christianity an evolving accommdation to the increasingly immoral society so as not to offend and retain membership.
That was a major contributing factor in 2006.
The same doesn't apply to the Democrats.
Google search words: s e cupp claims to be an atheist http://tinyurl.com/aadf3aa
SE Cupp says shes not apologizing for her attack on Rush
What I do know for sure is that S.E. Cupp is a plant or a stooge for the forces against us such as Ron Paul and Karl Rove. She was hired to do their work or help out. The New York Times piece said this:
Cupp, who is 33, defines her brand of conservatism as rational and optimistic! She is staunchly anti-abortion but also pro-gay-marriage and a warheads on foreheads hawk whose heroes are Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr. Like many Republicans today and indeed like liberal Democrats in the 1980s, before Bill Clinton came along and charted a more centrist course Cupp finds herself in the unenviable position of maintaining that Americans largely side with her partys worldview, even if their votes suggest otherwise. Public polling still puts the country center-right on a host of issues, she told me.
The problem is that her partys loudest voices sound far more right than center. The voters in Kristen Soltis Andersons focus groups condemned Republicans for their unchecked hatred of Obama and for threatening to take away financing for Planned Parenthood, ban abortion, outlaw gay marriage and wage war. From where they stood, at the center-right of S. E. Cupps domain, the party had been dragged well out of plain view.
Proximus seeks to marginalize the more strident talking heads by offering itself up to or if necessary, forcing itself upon the party as a 21st-century mouthpiece. If I were training a candidate whos against gay marriage, Cupp told me, Id say: Dont change your beliefs, just say legislatively this is not a priority, and Im not going to take away someones right. And if abortion or gay marriage is your No. 1 issue, Im not your guy.
I tried to imagine how Cupps kinder-gentler message-coaching would go over with the Tea Party, a group that was never mentioned by the young Republicans I spoke with until I broached it. Still, the influence of the far right on the partys image remains hard to ignore. When I brought up the subject of the Tea Party to Cupp, she said: People arent repelled by the idea of limited government or balancing the budget or lowering taxes. Those Tea Party principles are incredibly popular with the public, even if they dont know it. Again, thats a messaging issue, thats not a principle issue.
She went on to say, I dont think we win by subtraction meaning, by casting out the partys right wing to entice the centrists. Instead, Cupp and her fellow travelers hope to revive Lee Atwaters bygone big tent, under which gay people and Tea Party members and isolationists and neocons would coexist without rancor. But Atwater, the legendary R.N.C. chairman, did not have to worry about freelance voices like Limbaugh and Todd Akin offending whole swaths of emerging demographic groups. Nor during the Atwater era, when Ronald Reagan was president, did the partys most extreme wing intimidate other Republicans into legislating like extremists themselves, thereby further tarnishing the partys image. When I mentioned this to the Proximus gathering, Goodwin explained the dilemma faced by Republicans in Congress. What forces them to vote that way, 9 times out of 10, is a fear of a primary challenge, he said. What we hope to accomplish is to bring more voters into Republican primaries, so that it isnt just the far right that shows up at the polls.
34 posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 2:09:07 AM by Mozilla
it;s why I left my church.
I see no reason why we allow liberals and libertarians who have their own party, own conventions to pretend they are us republicans and then have them in their arrogance tell us that we have to change to suit them.
Bryan Fischer: Rand Paul’s view of marriage would be a disaster for America
Acceptance of homosexuality IS the judgement on our nation for turning away from God and worshipping the creation instead of the Creator.
I’ll oppose this acceptance, but I think it’s inevitable unless we reverse the reason we’re being subject to wrath.
Being told at CPAC that the party is old and stuffy and the party has to change by Paul while he tells us homosexuals should marry, illegals should come here as we should nto waste money on border patrol is plain stupid and I was hopeing he would nto go the same way as his father but it seems he is more polished than hsi father but has the same socially far left wing views as his dad.
Sarah had it right.
We don;t need to change we need to fight and have those morals and traditionas again which made the country great.
Dr Carson, Sarah, Cruz, Col Allen West is the way forward and to hell with all those who pretend to be republcians, let them go to their own party, their own convention, their own primary
agree, he’s his father it seems but more polished.
I heard how Paul is great after standing up and I got caught up in it but now it seems that he;s got some fame he;s turning into his father.
Two years he;ll be saying cut weaken defence, make all drugs legal and get rid of the sex age law,
They have their own party, their own primary, their own convention, so they can go and let conservatives have just conservatives.
Also SE Cuppm the ditz on MSNBC of all channels saying she woudl nto speak because we did not allow any pro turd poking agenda types there.
I;m hearing Dr Carson now and he is briliant, shame the none conservatives infiltrate the convention
I don’t think all the ramifications of gay marriage have been examined. If both parties in a divorce are men, how will judges know who to screw over? I’m only joking...... sort of.
You can be fired from your job if you don’t believe in samesex marriage.
I would rather have no government recognition of marriage than have government recognition of something that is not marriage.
I'd love to hear her explain how she has three kids with four men. Right?
The "lady" in the article said her 3 kids have 5 parents and she wants the government to force society to say this is normal.
She probably has a 5-way “marriage”
I was talking to a family law attorney the other day and he is all for gay marriage because this will bring them lots of new business when it comes to divorce.
Not one that God recognizes, and His is the only opinion that counts.
As with all things, follow the money...who benefits.
Government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers,
Society can exist nicely even if 1% are freaks
Society can still prosper even if 1 or 2% are freaks and aren’t in the closet
Society might still survive by if 1-2% are freaks and half the people think that is “okay”.
Society will grind to a halt if 1-2% are freaks and the government forces everyone to pretend its okay and normal and celebrate it.
Society will crumble when we tolerate, condone, prech, celebrate and teach children to be freaks.
Sounds to me like SE Cupp has being doing some muff-diving.
Damnation waits those that violate GOD’s laws. HE gave them to us... HIS will be done. PC will not save anyone from the fiery lake!
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
You can be fired from your job if you dont believe in samesex marriage.
That is a clear Violation of the 1st and a probably a few other amendments...
Rand is the old man up and down. Only difference is Rand tries to fool people. He does not have the integrity of the old man, because agree with him or not, the old man said what was on his mind and didn’t cave. Rand says what he thinks people want to hear.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less. . . .”
I’d like to hear her explain the ‘more or less’ part.
What she isn’t really saying here is what happens after marriage extinction - parental ‘nullification’ of parenting by committee. Parents vote on what the ‘policies’ are going to be, and that’s how the kid gets raised.
That’s something only a statist can love.
Sounds to me like SE Cupp has being doing some muff-diving.
So the question is, is C-Cup going to be muff diving in the short hair cut A-cups or the long haired D-cups???
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
Well; there was these two, one night...
Maybe two of her kids are twins.
Maybe I don’t want to go there.
I’m out of touch with the republican party.
Well, boo frickin' hoo, honey. What did you expect at a conservative conference?
And anyway, when was the last time your Prog-Rat pals sponsored a "Free Markets" table at some Dim Rat conclave?
Funny you mention lawywers ... in 2001 Evan Wolfson gave an interview in which he said over 600 gay lawyers had been working for years -- about 20 years at that point -- to get "gay marriage" </solecism> legalized by Supreme Court decree (stuffed down everyone else's throats).
And they've gone almost entirely through a judicial, rather than legislative, process.
She’s hot enough to make time with but, moraly obtuse and intellectually contrived enough to make me skip the thought of even having a drink with her....
Then again, if we found ourselves in a bar at say, around 11pm, .....things happen.
+1 but, who defines living in sin?
To my way of thinking the state has decided they are the arbitors of what the word marriage means culturally and under the law.
I think two people can be joined in a ceremony, defined by their choice and objective, outside the gay lobby.
I see it as a “We write and agree to the terms and conditions of of our union”.
I don’t understand the governments role in marriage.
+1 but, who defines living in sin?
I was using “living in sin” as a euphemism for “living together unmarried”
I wanna watch....
Rand I bet sees his chance where his father failed, he wants republicans and conservatives to change their views to suit his.
Like you said Ron at least said what he wanted and to hell wiht it but it seems the way his son is going is do that stunt, get the media and now has some fooled while getting those non republicans all happy for his run.
I like S.E.’s cups, but not much else anymore sadly.
I don’t recall a single person lamenting the absence of S.E. Cupp at CPAC.
Wasn’t picking on you. Merely expanding a thought.
My curiousity these days wonders what and who defines “A thing, An act or certain unions”.
I’m stuck on this but, think I and my density are better prepared to define our relationship, as well, the terms of its dissolution, should that event become inevetable....
My thing and others mileage will vary....
And a most excellenf frame.
Still, like to see her neekid, at ths minimum....
Sorry....got a thing for weemans...
I guess everything looks like a "no-brainer" when you have no brain.
Seriously, that's one of those conversation or argument stoppers that should probably be avoided even if it weren't stale and flat by now.
And I have to wonder about Masha's logic. If it's obvious that marriage should not exist, how is it also obvious that she should be allowed to participate in the institution?
And vice versa (or mutatis mutandis, ceterus paribus, or whatever), if it's so intuitively obvious that she and her partner should have the right to marry, doesn't that imply that the institution she wants into should continue to exist?
The banner of "marriage equality" is frayed and torn asunder, with bits blowing in the wind, strips jagged and littering streets. Marriage, however, lives and breathes. As do those who salute her.
Ick! That's the kind of "beautiful writing" commentators should avoid. Also, it's the kind of fake, flip, smug, dismissive conclusion they should forgo. And it doesn't fit the rest of the article, which certainly gives conservatives or Christians plenty of reason to worry about the future of marriage.
Yes, there have been many examples. The one at Cisco stands out in my mind. There was a guy who was fired for being against gay marriage. His boss found on the internet he had written a book stating that. (was not high profile) The boss said that he was an excellent employee, great at his job, and he had never mentioned same-sex marriage, or anything controversial on the job. He personally liked the guy. But the fired him because he was personally against gay marriage.
Cupp is a pig, whoring herself out to the scum at MSNBC for some paychecks.
She’s dead to me.
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.