“I’m a conservative who believes that keeping the government out of my private life on a whole host of issues is totally consistent with supporting gay rights,” Cupp told TheBlaze.
Here’s some of what you had to say about her decision:
In response to all those people asking how letting gay people marry affects others, its not about letting them get married. It is about making us recognize their marriage. Once gay marriage is legalized, we will be required to recognize it. And its already starting.
– In 2010, Jennifer Keeton who was expelled from Augusta State University for her views against homosexuality.
– Last April, a Kansas State bill was proposed that would include a requirement that churches that rent out for weddings would also have to rent to gay couples. (was not passed)
– Kate Baker and Ming Linsley successfully sued (settled out of court) a Vermont Inn that would not rent to them for their wedding.
-NJ State Goverment ruled that the privately owned Ocean Grove pavilion had to rent to gay couples wanting to be married there
-Catholic adoption centers in Illinois and Massachusetts have closed after being told they must go against their beliefs and provide adoption services to gay couples.
– KSL, a broadcasting station in Utah refused to air a program called The New Normal about a woman being a surrogate for a gay couples baby. They were attacked for refusing to air the show.
Should I go on? This is not about gay couples marrying and quietly living out their lives. This is about forcing people who are against homosexuality to accept it against their convictions.
Here are my thoughts. I think SE has this one right. Some pointed out that there aren’t that many gay conservatives. Probably true. But which conservatives have the most opportunity to influence other gays who aren’t conservative? Easy answer, right? So we need to include these folks. Period. As to gay marriage, I think the government needs to approach it in as hands off a manner as possible. Let states determine whether it should be legal in their state. At the federal level we should merely recognize that a union formed in a state allowing gay marriage needs to be recognized everywhere. At the religious level, the first amendment applies, the federal government has no right to involve itself, either at the level of the courts or otherwise, in the decision that a religion, pastor, or congregation make about whether or not that religion, pastor or congregation will perform and/or recognize gay marriage. That’s what freedom of religion means in this context.
Live and let live. Look, I don’t care who you are (or think you are,) you are not going to change a gay person. Period. They have made their choice. And that choice is between them and God. Sin is a personal issue, not a collective one. We are not called to eradicate sin in the world, Jesus did that. When mankind tries to do it you end up with the Catholic inquisitions and horrible human suffering. Let each man deal with their own sin personally with God. If that means the end of this country, well, I am not going to put the blame solely on homosexuality.
We have committed and continue to commit so many more sins as a nation beyond homosexuality. Pornography is a major one. And I don’t mean just in porn flicks. Greed and corruption are another. Materialism is probably the biggest. In the end, this nation has SO much moral fixing to do that to just sit here and believe that homosexuality is the only problem is outright ridiculous. Honestly, I don’t believe America will ever return to God as a nation of individuals, we are too far gone for that. Moreover, we all know what happens at the end of this road.
Exactly what I was thinking. Being a conservative IS NOT being a republican. As for gay marriage, I feel it is NOT a conservative value. Period. Not to be discriminatory, just fact. I believe that we should have equal rights but not same definitions. Call it partnership or whatever, just not marriage. But the gay agenda is NOT about that at all. I feel CPAC needs to keep its message of conservatism alive and not worry about selling itself around winning elections with groups of small agendas. Already been done. ie…Republicans and Democrats.
Contrary to many posts here S.E. deserves the right to express her opinions any way she sees fit. At least she is taking a stand for something in which she believes.
For those who are steadfastly homophobic, I can only offer my condolences. I assume your positions stem from religious leanings and/or Bible teachings. Fine! But, which parts of the Bible do you accept or reject?
This part: LEVITICUS (20:13) states, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Or this part: The “Thou shalt not kill” commandment (i.e., Commandment V if you are Catholic, Commandment VI if you are Protestant or Jewish)?
Be consistent in your faith at least.
S.E. is a libertarian Republican with fiscally conservative views and that is absolutely fine. The problem I have with her logic path is that she self-identifies as an holistic, big ‘C’ Conservative first, which is clearly not the case. It’s an attempt to remain relevant in the Republican party discussions. That is where, in my opinion, both libertarians and conservatives take issue with her, and rightly so. They get irritated with what they perceive as self-contradiction on her part. Should she be honest with both herself and the audience a lot of these perceived inconsistencies with her positions would not exist, leaving her as a reliable, staunch supporter of the party and ideologies in which she truly believes. Whether one agrees with someone else’s positions or not, consistently sticking to their beliefs will at least garner some measure of respect, something Ms. Cupp could clearly use.
I Love S.E. She is smart, articulate, and beautiful. having said that I am pleased to know that CPAC is holding fast on their principles. Compromise and wavering of principle such as this has caused the downfall of the Republican party and reduced it to “also-ran” status as of late. While I exercise my right to watch S.E. on The Blaze I still refuse to tune into MSNBC. She can have conservative beliefs, but if CPAC is too conservative for her, she has the right to stay home.