OK - I admit that's probably a bit uncharitable, but it points up a problem with GoProud being a sponsor at CPAC.
For the past few weeks, conservative bloggers have used every means possible to justify GoProud - a group of people who self-identify by the manner in which they engage in sex, being included as a sponsor (or whatever) at CPAC. Some of these bloggers have derided the groups that have chosen to not take the third leg off of Reagan's stool, which is social issues. As long as GoProud proclaimed fiscal conservatism, we were to ignore the fact that they, allow me say this again, self-identify by the manner in which they have sex.
If the people of CPAC think a self-professed group of homosexuals is a good match, what's going to happen next year if groups such as "Fiscal Conservatives for Abortion" or "Polygamists for Economic Conservatism" wish to attend? How about "Unwed Mothers on Welfare for Responsible Government"? Granted, those examples are on the absurd side, but it points out that social issues are not separate from economic issues.
GoProud is a group of people whose sole goal is to subvert the core institutions of our culture. They do not want equal rights, they want special rights. And layered on top of this is their need for society as a whole to approve of their lifestyle.
Can you really say that a group who supports forced tolerance by indoctrination of children in schools, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and forced hiring practices, is the kind of group that should be welcome at CPAC?
While I can appreciate the attendees of CPAC wanting to be inclusive and welcoming, it is really nothing more than furthering the goals of the homosexual agenda. It is giving tacit approval to a lifestyle that is physically and emotionally unwholesome and unhealthy, as well as morally unsound.
The individuals that belong to this group are more than welcome at a conservative gathering. A "group" that identifies, say it together folks, by the manner in which they engage in sex, should not.
From Erik Erickson of Red State
This is Too Much For Me
That's what happens when you "go along to get along," Erik[...]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.
[...]As someone who spent time trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I accept this as conclusive proof that, while it is a Republican organization, GOProud is not a conservative organization. read the rest
Excerpt from letter to CPAC from co-signing organizations American Values, Liberty Counsel and the National Organization for Marriage
Quote of the Day[...]We have examined closely GOProud’s mission and its behavior since its inception, and can only conclude that the organization’s purposes are fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith in a thriving civil society.
Needless to say, we are deeply persuaded that a thriving civil society is an indispensable bulwark against the relentless expansion of government, a phenomenon that has gripped much of the Western world and helped to fuel the present fiscal and economic crisis. read the entire letter
From Mark of Ordered Liberty
"Conservatives need to stand for conservative principles, not for political victories that result in the destruction of those principles."
9 comments:
I see nothing wrong with allying with GoProud on fiscal issues, and it might be ok to let them have a booth, but it is nuts to let them be a cosponsor of CPAC.
'Individuals ... more than welcome ... but a "group" that self-identifies by ...should not'
Well put, and essentially my bottom line as well.
==
As I commented on another blog (lazy copy, paste, almost feels like spam alert):
On the social issue itself, I take a “tolerate, sure; accept, no” stance – with a strong dose of “gubment has no place legislatin’ morality, evah.”
So, that makes my position on GOProud: Welcome aboard, just don’t push the attribute thing in my face, and be sure to keep focused like a laser beam on the common enemy – Leviathan.
==
What I'm having trouble with - given the reports I've seen of the sniping back and forth - is knowing whether these GOProud guys are willing to accept the ground rules I've set down.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Why do I have a nagging suspicion that GOProud will contribute to conservatism in the same manner that Charlie Crist, Dede Scozzafava and Arlen Specter contributed to the Republican Party.
"...a group of people who self-identify by the manner in which they engage in sex, being included as a sponsor." Spot-on Adrienne. You nailed exactly how we should be thinking about this.
I was wondering if they were on the CPAC schedule and read here they are sponsors. LOL! I'm way behind the curve here. Great post! I'm linking you in mine.
I was originally in support of GOProud (as you know), but they've revealed themselves to be nothing more than leftists in GOP clothing. The Alinsky-style attacks, the attempts to silence anyone with vicious smears and name-calling . . . no. No. And no.
Trust but verify?
Hey, thanks for quoting me! I was wondering when you were going to deploy one of my finest remarks. Glad to see that it was well-deployed...
The Republicans need to have a big-tent, but not to the point where they don't stand for anything anymore. And as much as the big business-libertarian wings of the party would like to see social conservatives go away, the GOP without social conservatives simply isn't strong enough to win large victories. Just as social conservatives by themselves aren't strong enough to win alone, the other parts of the Republican coalition isn't strong enough to win without them. So, what to do?
Two things. First, realize that each component wing of the GOP needs the others, not simply to win but to provide a necessary balance and corrective to those elements of that wing's agenda that are too ideological in nature.
Second, realize that deliberately seeking to alienate one of the wings is a very bad way to cement a coalition. Libertarian attempts to hijack the conservative movement to become a vehicle for their ideology's pernicious elements is something that social conservatives shouldn't stand for, and is something that could ultimately fracture the coalition on the Right. And that would help neither conservatives nor libertarians.
Finally, as you point out, the liberty-agenda only works if their is a solid and strong social fabric undergirding it. Small-government is impossible if their is social disorder and instability. Limited government is possible only where there is a fair degree of social cohesion and a strong tradition of civic virtue within a given society. Absent those things (and alas, libertarianism is battery acid to them), limited government can't exist.
If libertarians seriously were interested in actually creating an atmosphere for small-government to exist, they would be supporting social conservatism. But I am afraid that the libertarians -- like any ideological devotees -- are for the most part interested only in ideological purity rather than crafting real-world solutions to real-world problems.
Homosexuality is nothing more than deviant sexual behavior.
I have a problem with people who identify themselves soley by their sexuality. There is something wrong with that.
It tells me that they have an agenda. That agenda is to promote their sexual orientation first, and whatever other cause they are supposedly "supporting" second.
It's no different than race.
"African Americans" are Africans first, Americans second. It says so right there in the term that they use to identify themselves. It's no different with "Gay Conservatives" (or gay anything else). They are gay first, conservative (or whatever) second.
If you aren't American first, you aren't American. It's all or nothing.
I never thought they were a good idea to include, Adrienne. "When you lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas", comes to mind.
Post a Comment