Liberty Law School is taking its toys and going home, so to speak:
Liberty University Law School has withdrawn as a co-sponsor of next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington because a Republican homosexual activist group is being allowed to co-sponsor the event.
Liberty University chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr., and Liberty Law School dean Mat Staver had penned a letter to CPAC organizer David Keene last month, requesting that he disallow the homosexual group GOProud from co-sponsoring the conference. The letter was also signed by other evangelical Christian leaders, including Gary Bauer of American Values. GOProud supports, among other things, same-sex “marriage” and repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Staver reports that he never received a formal response to his complaint, so Liberty University is dropping its co-sponsorship. Liberty Counsel, however, will still have a booth at CPAC.
So really, they’re not taking their toys and going home, they’re just taking them into a corner and refusing to share them. Apparently it is that terrifying to have your name on a list of sponsors near a gay name — because what if one of the other sponsors thinks that means you’re gay too? Anyway, this temper tantrum from Liberty Law is predictable and lame, but at the same time, I agree with those questioning just precisely why GOProud would want to join forces with people who see them as less-than second class citizens, people who give aid, comfort and support to eliminationist policies aimed at LGBT people at home and abroad, etc. I know that “gay Republicans” have convinced themselves that the most important issues facing LGBT Republicans are keeping healthcare as “whites only” as they can, and wetting their pants over Nigerians who fail to make their underpants explode, because those failed underpants bomber boogeyman guys also aren’t fond of gays, but give me a break. This group doesn’t stand to add anything to CPAC that will benefit the majority of LGBT people. For whatever reason* they’re gay wingnuts, and they shouldn’t be surprised when the Barons of Wingnuttia react with open revulsion and fear to the idea of having their names on a list next to a gay group. GOProud is simply finding out what happens when you try to make nice-nice with people who hate your existence.
(h/t Right Wing Watch)
*Head trauma?
If we get lucky, Liberty will start its own conference – “WNPAC” (Wing Nut PAC). For a week they will parade people like Porno Pete and Bam Bam on stage.
If anything, it will give us months of material to blog about. In a time of recession such an entertainment-worthy diversion would provide the spectacle we need and give us a few good laughs.
It would be difficult for Mat Staver and his fanatical friends at LU school of law to associate itself with GOProud, bearing in mind, only 2 years ago they co-sponsored the 2007 conference of reconstructionist organization American Vision, which advocated the death penalty for gays, by stoning.
http://www.au.org/resources/religious-right-research/organizations/american-vision.html
The group reemphasized its enthusiasm for the death penalty in an article relating to Uganda. Will LU be sponsoring them again this year?
http://blog.au.org/2010/01/12/hate-monger-religious-right-activist-says-hate-the-sin-and-hate-the-sinner-too-2/
Equally, why on earth does GOProud want to be seen dead in the same hall as LU?
[...] realize the significance of the news Wayne linked on his facebook page and that colleague reported on his website: Liberty University Law School has withdrawn as a co-sponsor of next month’ Conservative [...]
[...] other day, I wrote a piece about Liberty Law’s withdrawal as a co-sponsor of the Conservative Political Action [...]
Hey, Evan,
Just because you think socialized medicine is fine-and-dandy and enjoy presuming upon the safety of the country doesn’t mean that GOProud has to.
If they’re conservatives why shouldn’t they participate in CPAC or any other conservative event?
You’re a typical leftist, Evan: You scream about compassion (the absurd comment about health care being white) but reveal yourself as bitter and selfish (why don’t gay Republicans focus on being gay rather than on being Americans) at the most minute provocation. Loser.
Did I miss something? Did a socialized medicine bill pass?
Did I miss something? Did George W. Bush defeat al Qaeda?
Catch me up!
OH, but to answer your question more fully, as to why they shouldn’t participate, go to the front page of the blog.
Did you miss something, Evan? Apparently yes. You missed out on a brain.
Both House and Senate have passed bills giving the government immense and unconstitutional power in health care.
And as for Al Qaeda, Bush’s defeating or not defeating them is irrelevant for this discussion, but he did a better job fighting them than his successor has done so far. As the whole world knows.
You really have a fat lot of nerve raising questions about Bush’s record against Al Qaeda after making fun of people for being alarmed by yet another attempt to destroy an airliner. Perhaps if lefties like you could learn to take matters like national security seriously, your constant whining about how the state won’t validate your identity would be easier to take. Perhaps.
I looked at your blessed home page. There is nothing there that answers my question. So I take it you have no answer other than your reflexive dislike for all things non-leftist.
I missed having a brain? ZING! You are a really good troll!
I made fun of the people who are hiding under their beds in fear because some geek failed to explode his underpants properly, yes.
Let’s review how many successful al Qaeda attacks happened on Bush’s watch: Well, there was that HUGE one. Perhaps you forgot. But with Obama, there was the geek who tried to blow up his panties and failed. You’re right, that’s worse. Also, let’s see…Bush started a war with people who did NOT attack us, while releasing detainees into Yemen who went back to the fight with al Qaeda in…um…oh, yeah, YEMEN. Meanwhile Bush was making boom boom in Iraq. So, um…yeah.
I don’t know what metric you’re judging in saying that Bush did better than Obama on national security, since by this point in Bush’s presidency, 3500 Americans had been killed in New York City and at the Pentagon. Perhaps “Lefties” like me just take national security seriously enough that we’re willing to do basic math.
Also, the Senate bill, if you haven’t noticed, is actually a giveaway to big insurance. But I’ve read it, and I doubt you have.
And when I said look at the home page, I meant click to the first entry on the blog. Find that. Get back to me.
And good morning!
Let’s also remember that Bush got a memo in August 2001 that read: “Osama determined to attack United States”. It doesn’t get much clearer that this.
With all of Buh’s mountain biking and brush clearing, he hardly had time to read about threats from a group that he could not pronounce.
Dave…Bush was a chimpanzee! Seriously, you think that Bush did a better job than Pres. Obama did in staving off terrorist attacks? I’d like to know what standard you are using to determine that.