The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Partial Apology from GOProud

Text Size

Partial Apology from GOProud

By Quin Hillyer on 2.10.11 @ 7:01PM

From a report at Frum Forum:

Asked for GOProud’s response, the group’s chairman apologized for his comments about Cleta Mitchell. “For the past six months, we have watched as unfair and untrue attacks have been leveled against our organization, our allies, our friends and sometimes even their families. Everyone has their breaking point and clearly in my interview with Metro Weekly I had reached mine. I shouldn’t have used the language that I did to describe Cleta Mitchell and for that I apologize,” said Chris Barron.

Still no apology to Sen. Jim DeMint or others for saying they belonged on the "island of misfit toys." No apology either for calling Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council a "bigot." But at least it's a (very) belated step in the right direction. He'll need to take a lot more steps to make up for his slander, though.

He needs to understand that objections to his group's participation stems from their policy positions and the way they have pushed them -- what they believe and how they act politically, not who they are in private. Going beyond pushing a state recognition of certain contractual rights for homosexuals, all the way to demanding state-approved homosexual marriage, is so obviously a fundamental change in conservatism as to clearly be a cause for serious misgivings. Of course there would be a protest from conservative groups. If a group openly pushing permanent nationalization of a major industry wanted to be a CPAC sponsor, there would be a big controversy about that as well. That's not bigotry; it's politics.

View all comments (29) | Leave a comment

flanoggin| 2.10.11 @ 7:45PM

Correction---That's not politics; it's bigotry

bobmontgomery| 2.10.11 @ 8:14PM

Imagine that you are a group of "concerned homosexuals" supposedly hip, on the cutting edge, insisting you have something to offer, claiming to be conservative, well, almost to the core. You really want to be a part of the conservative ascendancy. Now, recall if you will the various and tawdry Gay 'PRIDE' exhibits like the gay 'PRIDE' marches in many cities, especially of course the ridiculous affairs in San Francisco, which even many homosexuals are embarassed about. So you, the conservative, America first but with a twist organization, what do you name your group? Go'PROUD'. Now you think you're being clever with the first three letters being GOP, but you've got to have that PROUD in there because you not only want that 'identity' thing, you want it clearly understood that your sexuality is what makes you 'special'. So you say all the right things and try to be helpful in oh so many ways, just right there under the surface, and then all of a sudden the Hope for Change administration comes in and all those years of liberal homosexual activism start to be felt and the Republicans, yea even the conservative Republicans, begin to soft pedal and backburner opposition to what you have always wanted - to reduce traditional marriage to a level where in your eyes your own status is elevated.
So you get brassy and you begin demanding things, and when you get rebuffed, you revert to what? The liberal form. Vile reverse bigotry. Calling people what you, in fact , are. Straight out of the Democrat's playbook. You shouldn't have wasted this time. You should have found your home when the Hope and Change placards first went up. Because that's really the crowd you want to be with. The Loud crowd, the 'Progressive' crowd, the 'in your face' crowd. You don't want to be conservative at all. You have too much.........Pride.

29Victor| 2.11.11 @ 9:55AM

Bingo!

TamiB| 2.10.11 @ 8:50PM

There is pride in calling people bigots? There is pride in telling people they should be removed from society? There is pride in using progressive attack methods against the very people you claim to represent?

If that's GOProud's idea of pride, this conservative wants nothing to do with it.

frank| 2.13.11 @ 3:03AM

Actually, a representative of the Family Research Council said he'd like to export homosexuals. So, you conservatives are the ones standing for bigotry and ethnic cleansing.

Lanesville Tom| 2.10.11 @ 9:04PM

Well said, Bob.

flanoggin| 2.10.11 @ 9:05PM

There are those homosexuals who believe in America, believe in FREEDOM and LIBERTY for all, in protecting Amercia and keeping the government out of my life. My gay life. With my husband. We are not "gyrating" in the streets, or swinging late into the night. We are working hard, being honest and paying our taxes. We just happen to be gay. Thanks America---and screw the bigots

tatosian| 2.10.11 @ 10:01PM

Do you support the introduction of your lifestyle choice to other people's grammar school children?

flanoggin| 2.11.11 @ 5:13PM

Um--my choice was to be A-Gay B-celibate C-lie to a heterosexual woman, get married and hope for the best. When did you decide to be heterosexual? But to answer you question, of course not, I do not believe sex (of ANY kind) should be taught to grammar school children. Do you think heterosexuality should be taught to grammar school children? By the way, I do not have children nor do I want them, but I respect every parents right to raise their children and am very happy to pay my taxes to educate YOUR children so we have a strong and prosperous future as a country. You are welcome.

tatosian| 2.12.11 @ 3:46AM

I didn't ask you about your process of self discovery okay?
And I put my kids through private school.
You or any other tax paying homosexual had no hand in educating my children.
Not surprising that you would give yourself credit for doing so though.
And I'm sure you don't approve of exposing children to the homosexual lifestyle in grammar school. Nonetheless the exposure continues.
Am I to respect homosexuals as human beings because they reap the benefits of a tactic that targets children?
Sorry. I don't.
You are welcome.

Throbert McGee| 2.12.11 @ 8:54AM

And I'm sure you don't approve of exposing children to the homosexual lifestyle in grammar school. Nonetheless the exposure continues.
Am I to respect homosexuals as human beings because they reap the benefits of a tactic that targets children?
Sorry. I don't.

Um, if it's your personal policy to not respect homosexuals regardless of whether or not they "approve of exposing grammar-school children to homosexuality, then why on Earth did you bother asking the question?

You could have saved time by just saying "I don't respect you, because you're a homosexual."

flanoggin| 2.12.11 @ 11:59AM

Exactly, and thanks Straw man argument. Funny comment about the "self discovery" thing though. If he just said "I don't like homosexuals" I could have saved some time.

tatosian| 2.12.11 @ 6:23PM

I don't like the means you folks use and sanction to justify your ends, if you will.

You said you didn't support exposing children to your lifestyle. Clearly that exposure is wrong and undermines the family but you and yours don't stop it because it suits your purposes.

That's the reality isn't it?

I could have said I don't like homosexuals but the truth is I don't care about homosexuals.

Your predilection for specific sexual acts is your own business. But you and yours insist those sexual acts entitle you to things to which your lifestyle choice is anathema.

You, or your champions/activists/humanist/equal justice bully's essentially attack and coerce children to accept homosexuality, thereby showing complete disregard for those children and their families, while those same champions insist you have a right to adopt children and start families.

That is; your champions attack and undermine the family structure while insisting that your choice, which precludes your birthing babies and starting a family, is the reason why you should be
allowed to adopt children and start families.

You don't see a problem with that reasoning? It doesn't appear a bit schizophrenic to you?

flanoggin---
I asked you a question. Your answer included information I had/have no interest in. It was too much information okay?

Your blubbering about me not "liking" homosexuals is straight out of the leftist handbook you know? why not just call me a bigoted, racist xenophobic nazi homophobe and have done with it? It'd be a better argument than any other you could come up with to justify the vile machinations you and your champions employ.

Have a nice day.

flanoggin| 2.13.11 @ 9:09PM

Dude. Relax. My response was 26 words. Your dramatic response is---well---dramatic (and supposes much that is not rue, but, whatever). I meant that sex IN GENERAL should be taught to children. It's pretty simple to understand. I don't think "exposing" children to the reality of homosexuality is threatening---clearly you do. You don't like homos---that doesn't make you a nazi. Stop the drama, take a breath and chill. seriously.

tatosian| 2.12.11 @ 7:36PM

hey thorbert?

My point is, if you as a homosexual benefit as a result of pre pubescent indoctrination (by allowing it to continue), aren't you, to a degree, responsible for the perpetuation of that indoctrination?

Are homosexuals absolved of any responsibility for what their champions do on their behalf? If so, why?

And does your fey and presumptuous declaration that I don't like homosexuals change that pre pubescent indoctrination or the benefits it affords your friend and homosexuals in general?

Not a bit.

So which is it you pompous ass: are children to be protected and allowed to be children or they empty vessels merely awaiting some sort of ideological, political or sexual filling up?

Simply put: if one's son became a millionaire drug dealer and his parent reaped the benefits of that degenerate trade, you would have no problem in assigning that parent his or her fair share of responsibility.

Get the connection there genius?

frank| 2.13.11 @ 2:53AM

I'm often told by conservatives that liberals are rude. But, as a typical liberal, I'm not in the habit of imagining every couple f*cking immediately after meeting them. I'm saddened to see that you're communicating this voyeuristic, rude, and perverse attitude to your offspring.

Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 1:53AM

Homosexuals identify themselves by their sexuality, heteros don't. Your first sentence was correct though--liberals are obnoxious as hell!

David C| 2.14.11 @ 8:06AM

Nope, no bigotry in that reply.

Ben| 2.10.11 @ 9:14PM

The problem with some RINOs is that they have been mothering activists like Barron just because they are gay. It’s patronizing to both homosexuals and heterosexuals – and it must stop. I know what real victims look like because I’ve worked in Third World conditions.

Interesting too how Barron says he was at “breaking point” (read: excuse making and victim identity politics) while telling other media groups that all was fine and dandy. GOProud is too tribal for my liking. And the irony…many gays want nothing to do with the group.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.10.11 @ 10:37PM

Hey, they are welcome under the tent.
Just please ask them to restrain themselves from running around naked.
I embbarrass easily. (sic)

flanoggin| 2.11.11 @ 5:16PM

You got a deal Ken...I embarrass easily also

Joe Jervis| 2.10.11 @ 11:46PM

I'm as far from being a fan of GOProud as anybody could possibly be, but Tony Perkins IS the head of a nasty organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center ranks alongside Stormfront and the KKK as a major hate group. If heading that group doesn't make one a "bigot," I afraid to ask what does.

Walt Gilbert| 2.11.11 @ 1:35AM

I'd say there's considerable controversy within the conservative movement related to any number of Ron Paul's positions.

No boycotts though. Why do you suppose that is?

Derek Leaberry| 2.11.11 @ 9:14AM

Bigot and bigotry have become loaded words these days so it is important to understand what the words actually mean rather than what the ignorant masses think the words mean. A bigot is someone who is passionately and/or obstinately attached to a creed. Thus, it could be argued that Pope Benedict is a bigot for his devotion to Roman Catholicism, Billy Graham is a bigot for his devotion to the Baptist form of Christianity and even President Obama is a bigot for his narcissistic devotion to himself.

I am bigoted in favor of Western Civilization and Christianity. Homosexuality is repellent to both Western Civilization and the major source of that Civilization, Christianity. Enemies of Western Civilization and Christianity, no matter if they are allowed to set up silly little booths at an alleged "conservative" conference, are my enemies. And anyone who gives succor to the enemies of Western Civilization and Christianity are also my enemies no matter if they parade around misusing the term "conservative" as a self-description.

With that in mind

Jerry| 2.12.11 @ 1:07PM

Um---so....you are a bigot?

frank| 2.13.11 @ 2:58AM

You remind me of the Hindu police who murdered several out castes accused of killing a cow. The police responded "At least we defended the honor of the cow."

Your cow has incited ritual murder against gays for two thousand years and libeled them as pedophiles while your priests raped your own kids.

By the very nature of their lives gays have had to sublimate their desires into work producing some of the greatest advances of Western Civilization from Greek philosophy to the Arts to mathematics and computer science.

It's time we recognized that far from advancing civilization, your superstitions are destroying it.

Lenny| 2.14.11 @ 1:55AM

You'd better count your lucky blessings that you live in a Christian America--things don't look so good for homosexuals in the Middle East.

Oldefarte| 2.11.11 @ 10:52AM

As I've previously said, they need to GO BACK INTO THEIR CLOSETS, and become GOP'ers, instead of GOProud'ers!!!!!!!!

Throbert McGee| 2.12.11 @ 9:17AM

"Going beyond pushing a state recognition of certain contractual rights for homosexuals, all the way to demanding state-approved homosexual marriage..."

Strictly speaking, GOProud doesn't demand same-sex marriage as a stated policy position -- but then again, they don't challenge or repudiate the demands for redefining marriage that come from pretty much all the other gay political advocacy groups. Their position on SSM is that they "have no position."

To be clear, there are, here and there, individual homosexuals who agree that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual and that the gay rights movement should stop trying to co-opt the word and instead should be agitating for more states to establish "domestic partner" laws, and ultimately to get DP laws recognized at the federal level. But it seems like 99% of the "Gay Community" has fixated on the slogan of Full Marriage Equality! as an article of faith -- so if GOProud refuses to challenge that, and prefers to "have no position," then they're pretty much Part Of The Problem.