Bryan Fischer, host of the American Family Association’s “Focal Point” radio talk show, is very upset about Hot Air’s nose dive into the thundercloud of gay politics, and angry that it could happen with our new “Christian ownership” at Salem Communications slumped lifelessly in the pilot’s seat:
Wow. Just as soon as the “Hot Air” blog was purchased by the Christian conglomerate Salem Communications from conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, it has suddenly become an advocate for all things gay. What in the world is up with that?
For background, GOPROUD is an organization dedicated to advancing special rights for homosexual behavior, and advocates the overthrow of the Defense of Marriage Act and the overthrow of the law banning homosexual service in the military.
Not only was GOPROUD welcomed at CPAC, an event which is supposed to be the annual showcase for conservative values, the organization was allowed to sponsor the event, giving visibility and recognition to its effort to legitimize sexual deviancy.
Fischer presses his face to the passenger windows of Hot Air, and sees Green Room contributor Repurblican crouched on the wing, tearing pieces of conservative purity from the starboard engine:
A Saturday post, from Repurblican, takes one of my new heroes, Ryan Sorba of California Young Americans for Freedom, to task for making the common sense statement at CPAC that homosexual sex cannot lead to reproduction. For this obviously correct observation, he was booed off the stage. And “Hot Air,” now under Christian management, has made Sorba out to be the bad guy.
Sorba showed the courage of his convictions by simply declaring the truth. Said Sorba, “Civil rights are grounded in natural rights, and natural rights are grounded in human nature…and the intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction…civil rights, when they conflict with natural rights, are contrary…” At this point, his remarks were drowned out by a chorus of vitriolic, angry boos. (View video of his remarks here.)
Consequently, Sorba said, “I’d like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPRIDE (he meant “GOPROUD”) to this event.”
For speaking truth to power, “Hot Air” accused Sorba of “bombthrowing,” and said his remarks represented a “gratuitous and public…slam on homosexuals.”
The idea that Salem Communications has somehow enforced new pro-gay editorial standards on Hot Air is ridiculous. So is acting like a jerk in the name of ideological purity at CPAC. This kind of factional infighting is obviously unhelpful to overcoming the enormous challenges facing us in the next few elections. It would be tragic for the nation if we left it rolling towards the edge of the socialist cliff, while we spend our days tearing the mantle of “true conservatism” into a thousand pieces, and accusing each other of heresy. A certain degree of this conflict was inevitable, as different groups struggle for control of the resurgent Right, from David Frum squeaking that it’s not too late to reach an understanding with our progressive masters, to Bryan Fischer advising his readers to “kiss off” Hot Air because some of our contributors dared to speak up in defense of GOPROUD.
I think my own credentials as a defender of traditional marriage are in order. They can be reviewed in detail here and here. I do not hold these beliefs out of animosity toward gay people, or disrespect for committed homosexual relationships. I believe in the positive value of the marriage tradition, and I reserve the right to celebrate that value without denigrating those who don’t participate in it.
The gay-marriage movement is necessarily aggressive, because they seek a substantial change in society. I appreciate the strength of their conviction, and as long as they respect mine, we can have a civil discussion. The temptation to detonate conviction into anger is strong, and counter-productive. I’m no more impressed by Ryan Sorba’s act than I was by Perez Hilton’s.
It’s remarkable how much the focus has shifted away from social issues, in the year since I began writing for Hot Air. Carrie Prejean’s encounter with Perez Hilton was one of the hot topics back then. Now we stand in the shadow of a looming catastrophe which threatens the liberty and prosperity of our entire society. It’s not surprising to see our focus shift toward the common menace. I don’t feel traditional marriage is any less important than I did a year ago, but if GOPROUD wants to have that discussion later, after we wrestle down unsustainable government spending, and clear the danger of being thrown in jail for failure to purchase government-approved health insurance, that’s fine by me.
I hope to reach something more than a temporary truce between the factions of the Right. The assertion that we are all captives of some agenda, which we must accept in full or reject utterly, is the language of identity politics, and of totalitarianism. The Fischer criticism of Hot Air demonstrates the foolishness of assuming that every member of an identity group is party to some kind of agenda. If there’s a “Christian agenda,” then either Salem Communications or Bryan Fischer was not invited to the meetings.
We can be united in our appreciation for liberty… and this requires respect for the individual, just as the embrace of collectivism ultimately brings contempt. You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin. Rejecting gay conservatives because they disagree with me about marriage would be crawling back into the walled compound of my little tribe, and expecting them to do likewise. Each tribe would then resume shoving the wrecking ball of the State at the others, until someone gets flattened. That’s not the game conservatives, or Americans, should be playing.
It’s not going to be easy to hold the components of the Right together, especially as our ranks swell, and the dependents of State rally to its tattered banner of rage and despair. The constituencies of the Left have been fairly easy to buy off. Sometimes it was only necessary to buy their leadership off, and leave the common folk to suffer beneath failed programs they were told they have a moral duty to accept without question. No such arrangement will suffice for a conservative movement united by its rejection of the bloated and dying central government we inherited from the twentieth century… but still working to reconcile discordant visions of what should come next.
We can show each other a little grace and courtesy without abandoning our strongly-held beliefs… or at least refrain from trying to excommunicate each other. Leave the identity politics to the nitwits who look at Marco Rubio and see a coconut.
Cross-posted at Hot Air.
“You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin.”
Bravo.
Spot-on Doc!
I 2nd the “Bravo” ;-D
I like how you phrase things – watch out AP…
I have an issue with the Christian Right (which I am a member of…) wanting total ideological purity, it is not realistic an not possible in this world – CERTAINLY not in the political arena
There you go again, Doc! You’re awesome. So much common sense for people to consider. Your #1 fan Patti
Must reading material as always, Doc!
[...] In Defense of Gay Conservatives « Doctor Zero [...]
“You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin.”
Methinks such flowery language doth cut too deep. So, I guess yer in favor of necropheliacs, those in incestuous relations, and those who are in polygamous marriages, eh? So long as they are fiscally conservative. I don’t think you can make a valid logical distinction once you climb out on the limb that you have chosen to crawl out on. Come on, yer not to judge them by their sexual preferences, remember?
I realize that the Founding Fathers were not always right, but when you find yourself on the opposing side from them in a political position, you might want to reassess whether or not you are correct. The Founding Fathers wrote and enacted the Constitution protecting our liberties, and at the same time outlawed homosexual behavior. What did they know that Doctor Zero doesn’t?
@ John Doe:
Uh, what?!? Please, please tell me where in the Constitution it outlaws homosexuality (or, necrophilia, incest, polygamy for that matter). These would be handled by the 10th Amendment, if handled at all during our nation’s inception.
Sorry, Doc — meant to issue a “Kudos” before addressing the commenter. Well thought out and extremely reasonable. I know at least two Conservative homosexuals and, until now, I always asked “How?” Now I know; at least one great Conservative thinker approaches the issue with understanding and compassion.
huge kudos to you, worthy doctor, for stating what has always been obvious to anyone who thinks that liberty actually applies to others as well as ones self.
this is what the first amendment and “the big tent” is all about …. “i may disagree with what you say, or how you live your life, but i will defend to the death your right to do so”, taking the nonagression principle as the only exception thereto.
we all need to keep hammering on this until those who do not believe in “the transcendent rights of the individual” profess their true inner statism and join the party that supports their views !
bravo, bravo, bravo !
“Uh, what?!? Please, please tell me where in the Constitution it outlaws homosexuality (or, necrophilia, incest, polygamy for that matter). These would be handled by the 10th Amendment, if handled at all during our nation’s inception.”
Oh they were handled alright. “By the time of the American Revolution, executions for same-sex intercourse were relatively uncommon but the laws enforcing same were certainly on the books–enough so that Jefferson helpfully offered castration as a more humane penalty in one 1776 letter.”
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/ig/Lesbian-and-Gay-Rights-101/Sodomy-Laws.htm
Such laws were and are well within the legitimate powers of states, and not of the federal government under our Constitution. They existed from the beginning of our country so they can hardly be found to be inconsistent with founding principles. For my part I do support laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman, which is consistent with our culture and tradition. I know many gay people just want special rights for themselves and enjoy the idea of destroying the institution of marriage . Which is why they affiliate with the Democratic (aka socialist) Party. They don’t fit in with normal people, and I refuse to call their ideas or their conduct good. That 2% of the population get their way contrary to overwhelming majorities who disagree is wrong. The rest of us should ignore their attempt to call their deviancy as normal and or moral. It is neither. They don’t want tolerance, they want supremacy. No. Way.
Could you go over the part again of why the government is in the marriage business. Take away the social behavior taxs or benefits by the government and the whole arguement of same sex marriage goes away. Leave it for the churches to decide.
Spot on Doc.
Both compassionate and conservative in the finest sense of those terms.
I’ve known several homosexual people in my lifetime, some family, some friends, and it was never pretty.
I’ve also darkened the Hot Air doorway for two years. If it’s a ‘closet’ community, I never noticed. Bryan Fischer? Who’s he?
I’ve long thought that serial divorcees and sick twists like John Edwards (in his hyper-rich, disfunctional America) do far more damage to marriage as a traditional foundation of society than homosexual perversion.
I guess that’s why we call it ‘tolerance.’
halfacarafe wrote:
Because government is in the business of sustaining itself. Certain beneficial unions (like marriage) are rewarded because they ensure future constituents.
“You can’t believe what I do about the transcendent rights of the individual, and the limitless potential of free men and women, while simultaneously assuming you can judge their innermost thoughts by their sexual preference, or the color of their skin.’
Huh? I have no problems with people’s sexual preferences: rapists, pedophiles, homosexuals, voyeurs, sadists, masochists, zoophilists, etc. I have a problem with their actions. If we can’t judge people by their actions….
“Take away the social behavior taxs or benefits by the government and the whole arguement of same sex marriage goes away.”
No, it doesn’t. It goes away only if no one, by word, thought, or deed including policy or commercial transaction, is required to believe in group marriage, rape marriage, homosexual marriage, voyeur marriage, pedophile marriage or any other sexual orientation marriage.
A rare miss.
Were it GOPNAMBLA would you feel any different? I seen no distinction in direction, just in degree.
After thinking about it further, one wonders if you would have written an article expressing support for a GOPWHITEPRIDE group. Identity politics is something we have all been fighting against, whether it be skin color or sexual preference. Do you not see the irony?
@ rae4palin:
Indeed. And for the rarity so much more lamentable.