United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ ... er-to-headline-a_n_673313.html
Published: Aug 6, 2010
Author: Nick Wing
Post Date: 2010-08-06 18:42:53 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 159143
Comments: 275
Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives Conservative pundit and unlikely gay ally Ann Coulter is set to headline the first annual Homocon, "a party to celebrate gay conservatives" put on by GOProud, the "only national organization representing gay conservatives." The festivities are scheduled to take place in New York City on September 25. "The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the 'no fun police' on the left," said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud, in a statement. "I can't think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed 'right-wing Judy Garland' - Ann Coulter." "I can promise you, Homocon 2010 will be a hell of a lot more fun than chaining yourself to the White House fence," Baron pledged, making light of an incident earlier this year where gay soldiers protesting the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy chained themselves to the gates of the White House. In choosing Coulter, the organizers of GOProud appear willing to ignore her past transgressions against the gay community. The conservative pundit was condemned by gay-rights groups in 2007 when she notoriously called then-Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot." And earlier this year, Coulter railed against "irritating lesbian" Constance McMillen for challenging the sanctimony of heterosexual-only proms. But Coulter's selection probably won't be surprising to many gay rights groups who have pointed out that GOProud sometimes exhibits self-destructive behavior. Earlier this year, the gay conservative group planned a fundraiser with Doug Manchester, a California businessman and hotelier who donated $125,000 to anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. That fundraiser was held earlier this month in an event that GOProud called an effort by Manchester to "make financial amends with the gay community," which had mounted a boycott of Manchester's hotels and accused him of treating his gay employees poorly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-65) not displayed.
.
.
.
#66. To: Abu el Boner (#30)
*whistle* Go get the bone, Boner!!
They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat... More importantly, there weren't any government marriage licenses at the time of the founders. True dat. Gubmint seems to feel that have the right to intrusion by dictatorial fiat for any reason. At the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19th century, state governments starting to nullify common law marriages and began to exert more control over marriage. By the 1920s, 38 states had laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. Interesting.... In the 1960s, governments started using their power over marriage to force "no- fault" divorce laws on all of us. That was an arrangement facilitated for business reasons (lawyers got rich), and social re-engineering reasons (NWO Commie/Blueblood Elites.) The end result has contributed to the destruction of the family. The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married. *Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman*
Some people who owns pets can communicate with them. Don't you agree?
So do many Native San Franciscan gay tribes.
I'll post something about this someday.
Not entirely true. I have seen and heard references to a "marriage" of a engine and transmission in a car or truck that didn't come with that engine or transmission. Heh...A Ford 5.0 engine with the tranny of a '75 Chevy Nova. What were they thinkin'?? I have also never seen where the term is LEGALLY limited to a partnership between a man and woman ONLY. WHERE is it restricted to only male and female relationships,other than in the minds of fundies? It's always been so obvious that man + woman = legal, it's expressed. "Fundie" authorization has nothing to do with historical sanity in this case; It's natural. Dogs get married. I read of one case where a man married his horse. In neither case does your religious cult have to recognize the marriages. Or monogamy? One bizarro-world case here and there is irrelevant. Only in yours and Rosie O'Donnell's cartoon world is she and another dyke, and Dick and Big Richard actually considered "married." What does monogamy have to do with it? The subject was marriage,and WELL over 50% of the marriages in this country are not monogamous. Some were never intended to be monogamous from the beginning,and in others at least one partner is stepping out on the other. That was my bad; I meant polygamy. What's to stop everyone from "marrying" everyone else - including their own two grandmothers?
That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government. Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state. Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state. It's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative.
Sneaky may be a product of that coupling, a horse's ass!
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
Probably because nobody ever tried it. Mostly because the superstitious fundies that controlled local governments would have murdered them. I think it's because they were too ugly and practiced bad hygiene back then. Washington had wooden teeth - giving a different meaning to "woodies" - NOT attractive to obvious deist (but not atheist) gays, Jefferson and Adams. Btw Pete - you DO know 98% of the Founders either believed in God or were Christians, right? There were also laws against blacks and whites marrying. Do you think THOSE laws were based on Constitutional principles? Obviously not. [White] people like you are singling them [blacks] out for special treatment and denying them their rights as citizens. *LMAO* Yeah, I've been the one forcing them to drink from the 'Colt 45 - BLACKS ONLY' fountain. All I am doing is saying ALL citizens should be treated equally by the government,and their rights and freedoms as individuals need to be respected. Gays already have the "rights" and "freedom" to be with whomever they want (providing they're not Priests) till the day they die and call it whatever they want. The rest of us oppose a law demanding that we consider it "marriage."
This is so simple: "Marriage" = Man + Woman. Now if you don't the government deciding on its new definition, then WTH is the government involved NOW?? Same sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years. Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state. Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state. Yes, I hear ya. t's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative. Did it ever occur to you that you're missing something here?
He and Pete and libertarians want government to stay out of the lives of people, yet they support the government infringing on the legal definition of "marriage." A consensus opposes IT. The subversion of the English language and definitions is a real problem. We even have Mexican madres dropping bambinos out of their wombs in Arizona - and SUDDENLY the kid and Mommy and daddy are "Americans"?? Bullsh*t.
Of course, what you are saying is simply not true. A Boston marriage, in the nineteenth century, was an arrangement in which two women lived together, independent of any man's support. Gay marriages were recognized in ancient Rome until 342AD. At least two Roman Emperors were in gay marriages, including Nero. Ancient Greece allowed day marriage too. Aristotle praised a same sex couple (Philolaus and Dioclese) who lived their whole lives together and maintained a household together until their deaths when they were buried side by side. I don't give a hoot about your views on this, but let's be historically accurate, shall we? HUH?? As historical "evidence of gay marriage" you present the respective cases of WHOM?? A couple of Bostonian freaky lezbos from the 1800s, a few B.C. Gay Greek Philosophers (big surprise there), and faggy Roman Emperors? Gimme a frickin' break. Statistically speaking - in 99.99% of ALL cases - the history of mankind has defined "marriage" as between a MAN & WOMAN.
Awww....had somebody abused you with a hard-cover King James Bible when you were a little rug-rat? Put some ice on it.
A.) The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and B.) You're wrong: A Boston marriage, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was an arrangement in which two women lived together, independent of any man's support. Some women did not marry because men feared educated women during the 19th century and did not wish to have them as wives. Other women did not marry because they felt they had a better connection to women than to men. Some of these women ended up living together in a same-sex household, finding this arrangement both practical and preferable to a heterosexual marriage. Of necessity, such women were generally financially independent of men, due either to family inheritance or to their own career earnings. Women who decided to be in these relationships were usually feminists, and were often involved in social betterment and cultural causes. with shared values often forming a strong foundation for their lives together
That isn't true. It is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999percent
A. NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female. B. (not bragging, but) I'm Right. If women wound up together, it was NOT "marriage." Sheeesh....
LOL...But what about that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001??
Funny that you of all people would mention "belly-up."
In the name of "freedom." (eyeball roll)
Then let nature deal with it, not the government. Nature has a great punishment for homosexuality -- your gene pool dies because you can't have kids. Why is this any of your business or the government's? It's not.
People weren't that stupid back then. It was called common sense. They knew what the second amendment meant too.
Leaving you with whom to guide your secular humanist atheistic Commie-Fascist society? Chyeah, you'll be a valued member of that society.
Which the government has destroyed with its control over marriage, education, and just about everything else in our lives.
It's not. Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??
In your pro faggot view. Does an employer have to offer benefits go faqgots who claim to be married (they never will be), if the offer benefits to normal people? Since when is it the govts job to change the definition of words for the mentally ill?
Would you like to shun Stone? Or would you rather he be lynched? You don't seem all that tolerant of his free speech OR respect his views. You've devolved into a drunken slug (hiccup.)
You're the one who doesn't GET IT because your head is stuck so far up the government's ass that you haven't had a breath of fresh air in your entire life. The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives. That's called FREEDOM, which you know nothing about.
You're the one who doesn't GET IT because your head is stuck so far up the government's ass that you haven't had a breath of fresh air in your entire life. The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives.
Where is that happening? In your dreams? Forgive her. She's possessed by the spirit of Ebenezer Beelzebub.
If you rephrase your legitimate question without the hateful language I will answer it. Otherwise, there's no point.
You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right? ONE single GAY Judge stepped in and negated millions of those legal votes. Do you know this?
Your point is where it's always been - at the top of your sharp, pointy head
But people are supposed to believe you're a political "Independent"?
ONE single GAY Judge stepped in and negated millions of those legal votes. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson We don't live in a Democracy, we live a Republic where people have inalienable rights to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is not up to the government, congressmen, governors, presidents, judges, the voters, or anyone else except the people who want to marry, their families, and their church. That's the bottom line. To me you are a socialist who wants the government to control everything, no different than Obama or Barney Frank.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If 100% of Californians voted to pass a law that was in conflict with the Constitution, that law would be null. In 1963 California's prop 14 allowing housing discrimination based on race, religion, gender, marital status, age was struck down by the SCOTUS because it violated equal rights and protections as set out in the US Constitution.
Why is it you fundies are so interested in marrying your daughters,sisters,mothers,and grannies? It has never occurred to the rest of us that anybody would even want to,yet you must or you wouldn't be trying to push for laws to put people in jail for doing it.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
AMEN! It's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative. Yup. It almost seems like somebody keeps moving the goalposts further and further to the left,doesn't it?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Yukie,yukie,yukie. Shouldn't you be changing the irritable puppy's diaper,or something? Maybe fitting your livestock with strapless heels and fishnet stockings?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
BullBush! What government doesn't have is the authority to determine WHO gets married.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
No,I don't. I do know a lot of them played that game in public because they grew up in a system where admitting you were a non-believer could get all your property seized and yourself thrown into prison,though. Gays already have the "rights" and "freedom" to be with whomever they want (providing they're not Priests) till the day they die and call it whatever they want. Yeah,they can call it whatever they want,but without a marriage certificate one partner can be denied inheritance in some cases,or access to the hospital room where their mate lays dying. The rest of us oppose a law demanding that we consider it "marriage." BullBush! What you are demanding is un-Constitutional laws remain in place that denies a segment of our population the same basic RIGHTS that the rest of us have,all because of your religious superstitions. You are no different than the Muslims that want to install Sharia law.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Comments (107 - 275) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#67. To: jwpegler (#31)
if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...
#68. To: lucysmom (#36)
How would one prove that a dog has freely consented to marry?
#69. To: lucysmom (#37)
Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.
#70. To: jwpegler (#64)
#71. To: sneakypete (#40)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#72. To: Liberator (#67)
Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman
#73. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#71)
I read of one case where a man married his horse.
#74. To: jwpegler (#72)
That's up to the people who want to marry,
#75. To: sneakypete (#41)
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?
#76. To: jwpegler (#72)
That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government.
#77. To: A K A Stone, jwpegler, sneakypete (#74)
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
#78. To: jwpegler, sneakypete (#42)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#79. To: Skip Intro (#46)
#80. To: Liberator (#76)
ame sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years.
#81. To: Liberator (#78)
Statistically speaking - in 99.99% o
#82. To: jwpegler (#80)
#83. To: A K A Stone (#81)
#84. To: mininggold (#45)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up.
#85. To: A K A Stone (#47)
People destroying our culture are the enemy.
#86. To: Liberator (#82)
(Edited)
NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female.
#87. To: jwpegler (#80)
The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and
#88. To: mininggold (#48)
Heh..when the last king is strangled with the entrails from the last priest (or preacher) and all that. lol
#89. To: A K A Stone (#87)
It was called common sense.
#90. To: jwpegler (#86)
Why is this any of your business or the government's?
#91. To: jwpegler (#89)
#92. To: mininggold, A K A Stone (#49)
(Edited)
Typical of your way of thinking that culture is also monolithic. So far it has evolved to the point where you can call people vile names and make false accusations without being shunned or lynched.
#93. To: Liberator (#90)
Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??
#94. To: Liberator (#90)
Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??
#95. To: jwpegler, mininggold (#50)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up
#96. To: A K A Stone (#91)
#97. To: jwpegler (#94)
The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives.
#98. To: Skip Intro (#53)
My point is that Christians agree on little except calling themselves Christians.
#99. To: war, AKA Stone (#57)
FWIW, I never believed it.
#100. To: Liberator (#97)
(Edited)
You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right?
#101. To: Liberator (#97)
You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right?
#102. To: Liberator (#71)
That was my bad; I meant polygamy. What's to stop everyone from "marrying" everyone else - including their own two grandmothers?
#103. To: jwpegler (#72)
Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state.
#104. To: Ibluafartsky (#73)
Sneaky may be a product of that coupling, a horse's ass!
#105. To: A K A Stone (#74)
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
#106. To: Liberator (#75)
Btw Pete - you DO know 98% of the Founders either believed in God or were Christians, right?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]