The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations, Libertarian Edition: When Not Openly Hating on Gays Means You Just Might be a Libtard

Here's Sarah Palin talking about CPAC, the big conservative hooh-hah starting later this week in DC. The news this year is that folks such as The Heritage Foundation and Sen. Jim "You can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative" Demint (R-S.C.) are refusing to participate because groups such as GOProud, an openly gay organization, are attending. Palin is getting props for, as Breitbart.tv (from which the clip is filched (not felched!)) puts it, "throw[ing] support behind GOProud participation at CPAC." Here's what she said:

“Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues. I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have the better.”

The person who brought the vid to my attention, Michael Zeldis, gave his mass email the subject line, "Palin showing her libertarian leanings."

It suddenly just got a lot easier to be a libertarian! I don't think anybody has to "agree" with anybody about anything to be a libertarian, and I suppose Palin's comments are welcome compared to the actions of Demint and Heritage Foundation types. But what's it mean not to "personally agree with" gays and lesbians? That they aren't really attracted to their own genders? That they don't deserve equality before the law, which would mean equal standing when it comes to marriage, adoption, and public-sector employment protections (such as being teachers)? Acceptance of "teh gays" officially became a mainstream position last year, when 52 percent of enlightened (or maybe just curious) Americans agreed that gay and lesbian relations were "morally acceptable." Only 43 percent of respondents in a Gallup poll thought they were unacceptable (but that they'd be willing to watch under the right circumstances).

If the GOP wants to be the majority party of a U.S.A. ready to sashay its limp-wristed-men-and-ladies-wearing-combat-boots way into the 21st century, they might want to be, you know, actually accepting of gays and lesbians who love not just the wrong gender but a minimal state. Indeed, given a terrible history of harassment by the state at all levels, you'd figure that GOPpers would understand that the third, fourth, fifth, et al sexes would be totally into less government regulation of their lives and workplaces. Instead of being likened to, shoot, "a bunch of the liberal folks."

That this sort of thing is even an issue, especially among those who claim they want government out of their lives, is surely one of the reasons why fewer than one-third of Americans identify themselves with the GOP.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pip (OT)||

    I got to wondering about the comments from the Common Cause protesters regarding Clarence Thomas. One of them said that they should cut off his toes and feed them to him one at a time.

    Question: Specifically, what kind of toes are they?

  • ||

    That's some pretty funny shit (the Common Cause letter suggesting Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves from Citizens United, that is). Yes, clearly if the Kochs hadn't paid them to speak at a retreat, Scalia and/or Thomas would have sided with the FEC in that decision.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That's some pretty funny shit (the Common Cause letter suggesting Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves from Citizens United, that is). Yes, clearly if the Kochs hadn't paid them to speak at a retreat, Scalia and/or Thomas would have sided with the FEC in that decision.


    Nevermind that the Koch brothers were not litigants, nor had any stake in the litigants.

  • Skip||

    Lefties also feel the same way about all the Justices who voted against Al Gore.

  • SIV||

    Brazil nuts?

  • Pip (OT)||

    Yes!

  • The Ghost of Robert Byrd||

    Nigger Toes!

  • ||

    Nice, guys. Libertarians have enough press problems without making everyone think we're a bunch of racist eff-tards. So, way to go on that oh-so-clever bit of wit.

  • ||

    Question: Specifically, what kind of toes are they?

    Better question: Was Rex Ryan at this rally?

  • ||

    Brazil nuts.

  • MWG||

    The Heritage Foundation isn't attending. I though they were mostly focused on tax and economic issues.

  • ||

    But what's it mean not to "personally agree with" gays and lesbians?

    Perhaps it means that, while you disapprove personally of homosexuality, you don't think its the business of the State (either way)?

    Which is, actually, pretty libertarian.

  • ||

    I figured it means that you believe gays and lesbians deserve equal protection under the law but you fucking hate Glee.

  • Playa Manhattan||

    What were you really doing after the Super Bowl?

  • Pip||

    I watched Glee for the first time last night and here is my question: With all of the time and effort that they put into those big production numbers, it really is a shame that they don't put in the same amount time and effort into the plot and dialogue.

  • Barbara Yawpie||

    Racist homophobe!

  • ||

    Better yet, when you're airing an episode of a show involving a "national football championship" right after the fucking Super Bowl, how about trying to make it actually look like football.

  • ||

    Kind of like The Matrix 2 and 3? A fortune spent on a crappy story.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Careful. Jane Lynch can whip your ass, straight boy.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Then I'm with Palin on this one.

  • Brett L||

    At the point where Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin are on the uh, 'liberal', side of an issue isn't it time to Buckley the remaining factions in the party on the hard-line side?

  • West Coaster||

    Buckley is a verb?

  • ||

    It is now, fucker. He just verbed it.

  • Calvin||

    Verbing weirds language.

  • Barbara Yawpie||

    To buckley (v.) -- asking the young Ivy League graduate crewing your yacht to raise the mast a little higher

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    How the hell do you raise the mast higher? Eh, wot? You got an extend-a-mast on yor bot?

  • Bee Tagger||

    This would be the perfect test case for mass conversion therapy. Why would The Heritage Foundation ruin that?

  • Bruce Majors||

    The father of homosexual conversion therapy, psychiatrist Charles Socarides, is the ACTUAL father of Clintonista and Tedium Tatters gaybot Richard Socarides.

    So homophobia clearly leads to statism, in a tragic cycle of abuse. Those poor spazzy flamers you tortured on the dodge ball court have all gone to work at the IRS and TSA so they can feel manly. Or feel men.

  • ||

    But what's it mean not to "personally agree with" gays and lesbians?

    I think that some people don't like homosexuals because they have an atavistic "yuck" response to it, by which I mean some people think buttsecks is nasty. Homosexuality and sodomy are the same thing, as far as they're concerned.

    Others dislike gays because their deity told them to. And really, that's as deep as I think you need to go with that, because somebody who has a religious objection to homosexuality is not amenable to a personal freedom argument for it.

    I've been curious whether the anti-gay marriage crowd really just opposes gay marriage, or if it's a veiled opposition to homosexuality itself.

  • jasno||

    You left out the sissy-haters. Some people don't like anything that they perceive as being weak. Not that being homosexual makes you weak, but I think many perceive it as such.

  • Bruce Majors||

    All these forms of repugnance are distinct: lots of gay men dislike and are also not attracted to, effeminate men (often calibrated as anyone more effeminate than themselves).

    Some lesbians don't like gay men in general because they find them too girly (passive, cowardly, etc etc) without the good bits; some lesbians prefer their male friends to be "in touch" with their womanly side.

    Some gays (perhaps a minority), myself included, don't feel comfortable with transsexuals generally, even if we have a transsexual friend here or there.

    And then there are those slutty, fickle bisexuals....

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Show me on this doll where the bad bisexual wouldn't touch you.

  • Bruce Majors||

    May I show you on you, instead?

  • ||

    LOL

  • Jim||

    Excellent!

  • ||

    Well, I think (beautiful) Lesbians are interesting.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Almost everyone thinks beautiful lesbians are interesting. They are. Who wouldn't want to be beautiful and capable of multiple orgasms all night with someone similarly situated?

    I actually prefer lesbian porn (with real lesbians) to heterosexual porn. Curiously, many lesbians prefer gay male porn to all other forms. In the recent good movie, "The Kids are Alright," lesbian couple Annette Benning and Juliane Moore are watching gay male porn while having sex and accidentally roll onto the remote and shoot the volume up so their kids can hear it.

    I think a bunch of us gays don't like watching men stick it in women. When I was a child I actually asked my mom, when I was like 9 or 10, if people basically went nuts when they were having sex. I imagined that men basically attacked women and that women didn't like it. I didn't actually know Andrea Dworkin though and Susan Brownmiller hadn't written her book yet.

  • ||

    Just like my grandparents weren't OK with interracial marriage, my mom (who is fine with interracial marriage) is opposed to gay marriage but she's 4 for 4 at raising children who don't think it should be illegal. The question isn't whether or not it will be legal, but when.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Just like my grandparents weren't OK with interracial marriage, my mom (who is fine with interracial marriage) is opposed to gay marriage but she's 4 for 4 at raising children who don't think it should be illegal. The question isn't whether or not it will be legal, but when.


    And your nephews and nieces will support polygamy?

  • ||

    I don't see why not. As long as people aren't being forced into anything, everyone's 18 or older, and no one's rights are being trampled on, then it's none of my business, none of your business, and certainly none of the government's business.

    I thought that was sort of a big thing to Libertarians - that it's none of the government's business, whether we personally agree with it or not.

    (personally, I could care less...)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I don't see why not. As long as people aren't being forced into anything, everyone's 18 or older, and no one's rights are being trampled on, then it's none of my business, none of your business, and certainly none of the government's business.

    I thought that was sort of a big thing to Libertarians - that it's none of the government's business, whether we personally agree with it or not.


    But in the cases of polygamy and same-sex marriage, what is being denied is government sanction of such unions. It is not as if people are being imprisoned or fined for entering into a same-sex union or a polygamous union.

    Refusal to sanction conduct does not imply a violation of the right to engage in such conduct. A right to look at porn is not violated if the government refuses to sanction porn.

  • Jim||

    It is a violation if that sanction is needed to enjoy equality with others, such as in the federal tax code, which we are all involuntarily subject to, visitation and end-of-life rights with a partner, etc.

    And actually yes, the gov't does imprison and fine people for polygamy. It's illegal in most places.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Lesbians and gays have been paying FICA taxes since FDR, now a significant share of their incomes. But their surviving spouses and those spouses kids don't get Social Security survivor benefits.

    I suppose one could try to say that those male homosexuals who acquire HIV (a minority of gays) get a lot of government benefits, or did before the drug cocktail made it more manageable. But did their "end of life" care cost more than that of heterosexuals? Or were they just having their expensive, government-financed "end of life" care at 30 or 40 instead of at 70 or 80?

    I am always...amused...that "progressives" have been enslaving gays to pay for the survivor benefits of the heterosexual majority for decades, and yet think they are "progressives."

  • Barbara Yawpie||

    Yes when my sister became a lesbian my late husband would no longer let her babysit our children, since he could not look at her without thinking of the vile buttsecks she was having.

    This really hurt me. More even then when he would take me from behind.

  • Pip||

    This is some A+ trolling right here.

  • prolefeed||

    lesbians don't generally have buttsecks.

  • Robert||

    Others dislike gays because their deity told them to.


    No, they told their deity not to. If God told them otherwise, they'd get themselves another God who knew how to play ball.

  • Titty Twister||

    Which is funny since his son never married and ran around camping and drinking wine with 12 guys.

  • Scott||

    "somebody who has a religious objection to homosexuality is not amenable to a personal freedom argument for it."

    This is not true.

  • ||

    " filched (not felched!) "

    No need for the parenthetical. You either mentally fill in felched, or you don't get the joke anyway.

  • Titty Twister||

    I am surprised Mr. Gillespie knows that word. I do not know whether to attribute such knowledge to his PhD in literature or to his leather jacket, doe eyes, and lamb chop sideburns.

    I had completely forgotten the term, since everyone stopped doing it during the HIV epidemic, until I read Larry Kramer's novel "Faggots," and was reminded of it. A novel that may well be the funniest (and among the dirtiest) written in the English language. But if buttsecks scares you you won't be able to enjoy it. Poor you.

  • ||

    Felching will never die so long as Warty lives.

  • Titty Twister||

    Does he prefer Santorum Classic or the low calorie, caffeine free variety?

  • Pip||

    "A novel that may well be the funniest (and among the dirtiest) written in the English language"

    I beg to differ...

    http://www.amazon.com/Daddy-Lo.....1593092784

  • Bruce Majors||

    Have you actually read this epic of African Queens and is it actually funny? Or were you responding to the earlier discussion about chocolate confections?

  • ||

    "...I don't think anybody has to "agree" with anybody about anything to be a libertarian"

    Hey, I spent almost worthless, easily printable and ever more printed dollars on my libertarian decoder ring...we won't get anywhere if we don't keep the tent small, cloistered, and filled with like minded people.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Crap, everyone agreed on a definition for libertarian and I missed it.

  • Spartacus||

    Acceptance of "teh gays" officially became a mainstream position last year, when 52 percent of enlightened (or maybe just curious) Americans agreed that gay and lesbian relations were "morally acceptable."

    Morally acceptable? Really? How about "none of your fucking business". Was that one of the choices on the survey?

  • ||

    ^^This^^

  • Really?||

    Libertine =/= libertarian.

    See also: pedophilia.

    My longer point is that it is permissible to make moral judgments about the habits and lives of others. To refuse to do so on the basis that they are "consenting adults" is to abandon principle and thought.

  • Spartacus||

    Pedophilia? When did we start talking about pedophilia?

    I don't refuse to make moral judgments. I do refuse to demand government action to enforce my moral judgments. The only legitimate concern for government is whether the rights of others are being violated. If two adult gays want to have buttsecks in their own home, it is not a subject for government action. If some busybody just can't sleep at night knowing that others are doing naughty things in their own homes, then too bad.

    Declining to make a moral judgment in this case is hardly abandoning a principle--in fact, it is just the opposite. Making an affirmative decision to declare something "wrong" requires some grounds for doing so. On what principle would one conclude that homsexuality is per se a moral wrong?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Oh good, I see everyone got the memo that "buttsex" is a sacred institution between one man and one woman and if the gays want to try to co-opt it they should spell it differently.

  • Sir Irony||

    Then you have 6 options: Best Tux, Bets Tux, Butts Ex, Sub Text, and Bus Text.

  • Titty Twister||

    I'd rather Derrida your Foucault while you are verbing.

  • Spartacus||

    Okay Fistal Math, I see your point.

  • Bruce Majors||

    What? You didn't want to use Fistula?

    Which could open up, as it were, a whole new vein of para-felching.

  • MJ||

    So now to "true" libertarians, tolerance is not enough, acceptance is the only valid stance?

  • ||

    I'm happy with tolerance and leaving people alone.

  • ||

    To me the true litmus test for libertarians is when they tolerate something they don't accept.

  • MJ||

    Unfortunately, that is not Gillespie's position here.

  • ||

    I would be curious what Palin could have said that wouldn't have given the jackett (or is it the stache these days) an excuse to be a prick.

  • ||

    "Gay people should be able to get legally married" or something to that effect.

  • ||

    The sooner the GOP kicks what used to be Southern Democrats out of the party of Goldwater and Reagan?

    The better off they'll be.

    Anybody who made Terry Schiavo an election issue should be forced to repent or kicked to the curb!

  • ||

    Palin seems to be standing up them. And they hate her. The establishment Southern Republicans loath Palin. Yet, instead of standing up for her, the Stache writes some douche post. Being accepted among Washington journalists is the Reason staff's prime directive.

  • ||

    I think it's just that you can't go wrong by bashing someone who may be a future president. If you're being judged on how effective you are as a libertarian journalist, no one can ever fault you for criticizing a politician...

    For the rest of us, however, who have to figure out how to run this monstrosity of a government, I'm likin' Palin more and more all the time!

    (GOP - Bible Thumping)^2 = Ronald Reagan in a Dress!

    I'm not sure I'd be thrilled about her foreign policy, but given the people she's running against in the party?

    I'm likin' Palin a lot!

  • ||

    Are these the same "establishment Southern Republicans" of which Jim "You can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative" Demint is a part?

    I guess he's not really "establishment" in the same sense, but he still fits in with the "We have to legislate Christian morality" types.

  • ||

    Exactly!

    I feel like when I was talking to the lefties about the Tea Party!

    They couldn't get their heads around the idea that the biggest threat to George W. Bush and his legacy was the Tea Party--even as the Tea Party was knocking Republican establishment candidates off in the primaries like duck pins! ...somehow, they thought the Tea Party was a threat to Democrats?!

    I'm starting to see Sarah Palin the same way. If people on the left want to see Southern Bible thumpers given the heave ho, then bashing on Sarah Palin's the last thing they should do. She might be the solution to all that...

    I'm starting to see her more and more in the tradition of Goldwater and the Gipper. ...who despite all the hot air thrown their way, were no good friends of the Bible Belt establishment. What did Reagan ever do for the Bible thumpers? Goldwater pledged to fight the religious right "every step of the way"!

    I'd love to see Sarah Palin blast the religious right! Maybe she should wait until she gets nominated--IF she gets nominated--but if she does? She should blast 'em!

    ...and it won't cost her any votes at all.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Anybody who made Terry Schiavo an election issue should be forced to repent or kicked to the curb!


    When was Jesse Jackson, Jr. or Harry Reid kicked to the curb?

    Paul Kanjorski was kicked to the curb, but for reasons other than Terri Schiavo.

    The sooner the GOP kicks what used to be Southern Democrats out of the party of Goldwater and Reagan?


    The only reason that the Southern Democrats went to the Republican Party is because abortionists and counterculture hippies took over the Democratic Party.

    The problem is not so much that they support traditional social values, but that they support massive government spending and intervention in the economy, and nominate candidates who do the same. The current generation of RINOs rely on these Southern Democrats to win primaries.

  • Barbara Yawpie||

    The way they felched that poor girl while she was hospitalized made me sick.

  • jasno||

    Can someone offer a translation of the Palin quote? I tried to get through it but it's just too much for me.

    Also, love the look on her face in the video preview clip. Looking off into space, searching for the words...

  • SIV||

    Sen. Jim "You can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative" Demint (R-S.C.) are refusing to participate because groups such as GOProud, an openly gay organization, are attending.

    DeMint's spokesman doesn't say anything about GOProud as the reason he is not attending.

  • Really?||

    Truths:

    1. You do not have to be accepting, or even "tolerant", as that word is used in the mainstream, to be a libertarian.

    2. You can hold all kinds of repugnant beliefs provided that your commitment to individual liberty in the face of the State is paramount in your political values hierarchy.

    3. Things are complex. People make wrong judgments. That does not call for excommunication.

    4. Anyone not attending CPAC because "the gays" are there is a moron.

    I do not think any of these truths conflict with each other. You can be open to the notion that homosexuality is a bad moral choice and still be a libertarian. You can be a racist and be a libertarian.

    Fusing culture and politics is what the statists do. Let's knock it off.

  • woof||

    "You can be open to the notion that homosexuality is a bad moral choice and still be a libertarian"

    It's not a choice.

  • Really?||

    There are plenty of gays, lesbians, and queers who would disagree with you. Or, even better, say they don't care whether it is, because they like the queer lifestyle. Homosexuals are just as tired of being used as culture war proxies as anybody else would be: rightists who act like trogs and condescending leftists who treat them like poster children.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Maybe I am only saying this because I am becoming a bitter old queen, but I think many gays, and especially most gay politicos, are way too stupid to resent being used as ammunition in the culture wars.

    Have you read their blogs?

  • ||

    The thing that amazes me is how unrepresentative the "gay political leadership" is of any gay person I have ever known. The gays I know are nothing like the clowns who are in politics or write blogs. Sadly, if your only exposure to gay people is the ones you see in politics, you are likly to think gay really are the freaks the religous right claims they are.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Maybe so. I live in DC and sell houses to gay politicos and their straight friends. Somewhere out there I know there is a whole 30% who do not vote for Kerry-Gore-Obama.

    But since I have to deal with the politicos, you will find me at the end of the bar, pickling myself.

  • ||

    I live in DC to. And the gays I know live way out in the burbs. I suppose they are different than the ones you live in Dupont and Capitol Hill.

  • Bruce Majors||

    "too." Channeling ur-queer Zachary Smith.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Sadly, if your only exposure to gay people is the ones you see in politics, you are likly to think gay really are the freaks the religous right claims they are.


    One big kicker was when the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center announced ....that it is joining the economic boycott of Arizona because of the state's ...illegal immigration law.

    The comments were very educating, to write the least.

    Comment 53

    And they want "equal rights" to get married in this state? Way to galvanize California citizens against anything you ask for, gays!

    Who are the leaders of the gay coalition? So far, they make exactly the wrong political moves. I mean every single time!

    The FUNNIEST aspect is the gays are advocating for a lot of poor dumb catholics who would provide the power voting base to disallow gay marriage in California in perpetuity!!

    Are you people just STUPID?!!! Do you all just do what your stupid "leaders" tell you to do? Because they're ruining your lives!
  • woof||

    Citation please.

    Sexual orientation is not a choice.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Would it matter if it was?

  • woof||

    It shouldn't matter if it's a choice or not.

  • Zeb||

    I think it has something to do with the Golden Girls.

  • ||

    Well, if it's a choice, then TEH GAYS can recruit young innocent heteros to join their dark army. Or THE GAY is like a virus, and you can catch it. Or something. Right?

  • Pip||

    I gots the gay fever!!!

  • ||

    What it comes down to is how do you define "gay"?

    If gay means having sex with a member of the same sex, then it is a choice, since one could also choose to abstain from sex. People also choose to have hetero sex, so don't think I'm letting them off the hook.

    If gay means something else, men being more effeminate for example, then it becomes more skewed as to whether or not it is a choice.

  • Bruce Majors||

  • Pip||

    "There are plenty of gays, lesbians, and queers who would disagree with you."

    Let me pull my dick out of your ass long enough for you to rethink this.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Personally, I prefer a tongue. Just to keep with the whole felching trope.

  • Robert||

    You can even be open to the notion that it is a choice (good or bad), and be libertarian. You can also be open to the notion that certain things that appear to be choices aren't, and be libertarian. However, if you viewed too many things as not being choices (such that you were much less of a libertarian in the Catholic sense of believing in freedom of the will), the stakes in libertarianism would be too low to be worth bothering about.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The dodos who are skipping CPAC because of GOProud are as dumb as most of the journalists covering this tempest in a lemontini glass.

    They wagered people would follow them and they would be able to start a rival to CPAC, or have David Keene/CPAC etc come to them on bended knee. Grover "Machiavelli" Norquist, the first heterosexual man to join GOProud's board (which then made it easier for Breitbart to do), may have seen that GOProud's presence would drive the Family Research etc people out so his rival fiscally focused vision could rake in all the chips.

    He may have also foreseen that CPAC registration would be up by 15% (which it is), which he can then attribute to his big tent/small government approach to conservative politics. But it might have happened anyway just because of Obama's fascism and the tea party's energy.

    Grover +10, homophobes 0. Well played chess master.

  • Robert||

    Grover Norquist is a good strategic & tactical thinker when it comes to coalitions, as a result of long experience & study. He knows which groups coalit and which don't. If he thinks that's a good move, I'd bet he's right.

    D'y'a like the way I verb that? There's probably more justif'n for "coalign" or "co-align", but I don't use that one because when you think about the meaning of "align" the "co" seems redundant.

  • Bruce Majors||

    I do like your verbing. Though I wish you had said it on FaceBook so I could ask if it makes me gay that I like your link.

  • woof||

    Washington, D.C.) – On Friday, United States Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) told a crowd in South Carolina that he supports barring openly gay teachers, as well as sexually active unmarried female teachers, from the school system.

  • ||

    Link?

  • Bruce Majors||

    I think DeMint said something like that a year or two ago.

    Ron Paul used to support DADT too.

    Things change.

  • ||

    Not saying he didn't say it. But that is a pretty bold statement. Bold enough that I think it requires a link.

  • Bruce Majors||

    I think DeMint said something like that a year or two ago.

    Ron Paul used to support DADT too.

    Things change.

  • woof||

  • SIV||

    FAIL

    Your link does not support your statement. Now go eat some Chick-Fil-A and apologize.

  • ChrisO||

    Being a relatively affluent group, Teh Gays have as much or more to lose as anyone when our country sails over the the fiscal cliff in a few years (if not sooner). Fiscal conservatives in the GOP are idiots if they don't seek out those with a common cause in the stuff that really matters. Save the social conservative crap for when we don't have anything more important to worry and argue about.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Actually fewer of us gays have kids and we probably have fewer of them when we do. I only have 1 and I am sort of a fluke for a guy, especially an un-coupled one. And how many lesbian moms or couples do you know with more than two kids?

    So maybe gays don't care about debt slavery for the unborn as much. Maybe poofter economist Lord Keynes really meant it when he said we are all dead eventually, because he didn't expect to be extended into the future via grandkids.

    Before I get pilloried for channeling Midge Decter, I will note that you silly heterosexuals who wouldn't let Lord Keynes marry a nice working class ruffian who would slap him around, keep his mouth full and make him stay home and change diapers are responsible for this situation.

  • zoltan||

    If only Keynes could have gotten laid (by someone he was attracted to) we wouldn't have to deal with his inane economics.

  • GILMORE||

    Even when she says shit that isnt stupid it still reeks stupid. Seriously. Even translated into print it hurts the ears.

  • ||

    Is Lindsay Graham gonna be there?

  • Titty Twister||

    Third stall to the right, just off the main lobby.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What does it mean to hate gays?

    Some people claim that the historical and traditional definition of marriage is equal to hating gays.

    Western civilization has used that definition for centuries. Is it possible that Western civilization hated gays for centuries?

  • Really?||

    Yes. Look at what Western law had in store for homosexual conduct for centuries.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yes. Look at what Western law had in store for homosexual conduct for centuries.


    Only with respect to conduct.

    The cops did not go around showing pictures of naked men to suspected homosexuals and arresting them if they had a boner.

  • woof||

    Cops entrap gay men all the time.

    http://www.californiacriminald.....orney.html

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Cops entrap gay men all the time.

    http://www.californiacriminald.....orney.html


    They were arrested for public sex acts, not for merely having a boner.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Honey, if you don't realize men under 40 get boners and reveal themselves all the time you really need my help. Do you have a face pic you can email me?

  • Really?||

    Only with respect to conduct.

    The cops did not go around showing pictures of naked men to suspected homosexuals and arresting them if they had a boner.

    Newsflash: engaging in sex acts with a partner is part-and-parcel of your sexuality. Persecuting the act = persecuting the person.

    This would be akin to a leftist saying "I don't hate gun-lovers; I just never want them to discharge a weapon ever again".

  • Rachel Maddow||

    "....shoot...."a bunch of the liberal folks."

    NICK GILLESPIE IS A DOMESTIC TERRORIST!

  • Bennette Sebastian||

    This is pathetic.

    Why is homosexuality even an issue among Republicans? Concerning votes, beggars can't be choosers, so the GOP ought to step up and quit bitching about an issue that is purely social and costs them precious votes.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement