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.