As Joe Jervis points out, GOProud are “complete douchenozzles,” which is true, but I agree that the hysteria over their presence at CPAC from the usual suspects is a good thing, as it separates the wingnuts from the, er, other less harmful wingnuts.  Here’s Cliff Kincaid, typing with angry fingers:

GOProud’s commitment to constitutionally protected homosexual sodomy (i.e., anal intercourse) is not a position that appears on the agenda of any conservative groups. Hence, using the term “gay conservative” to describe these people is either a deliberate deception or an oxymoron that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

(…)

GOProud, the organization at the center of the storm, claims to be “conservative” but supports the Obama policy of putting active and open homosexuals in the military, supports homosexual marriage, and even advocates a foreign policy of promoting acceptance of sodomy abroad. The latter is referred to as “Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.”

These “radical regimes,” such as the Christian-dominated government in Uganda, are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS and protect traditional moral values by toughening laws against homosexuality.

Under these “gay conservatives,” one can imagine gay soldiers being deployed to overthrow “homophobic” regimes.

GOProud also says it wants to “defend the Constitution” in the U.S. by “Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.” It doesn’t explain how protecting the country against out-of-control judges legalizing gay marriage without a vote of the people is unconstitutional.

Giggle.  So angry.

Note that he’s defending the Ugandan anti-gay genocide bill again.  Take note, SPLC.

Later in the piece, Cliff shares that Ryan Sorba wants to debate Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan, in reply to which we can only spit our collective coffee at the computer screen, laughing, and say “PLEASE?”

Because it’s funny to watch stupid closeted white men intellectually overpowered by gays and lesbians with PhD’s.

On his blog, Andrew Sullivan writes about Rick Warren’s silence on the impending pogrom against gays in Uganda, despite the fact Warren has deep ties in this country. According to Sullivan:

“He [Warren] lies. He has taken sides, whenever possible, to stigmatize, demonize and now physically threaten the lives of gay people in his own country and abroad. And his silence on this issue means the deaths of others. Warren needs to come out and condemn this law as evil, which it is. And to stop hiding his own enmeshment with the most virulent forms of fundamentalist hatred under the veil of media-savvy benevolence”

Very well said Mr. Sullivan. We concur.

“Under the hate crimes rubric, gays are asked to see themselves as sad, passive victims of hate, reaching out to government to protect them more than those just targeted for other reasons (having money, for example). … Does anyone seriously believe that a hate-crimes federal law will actually prevent gay bashing? How exactly?” –Gay writer Andrew Sullivan in response to President Barack Obama’s signing a GLBT hate-crimes law Oct. 28.

Sullivan is wrong on his interpretation of the law. Gays as a class are not asked to see themselves as victims. Individual gays, however, actually are singled out and victimized on a daily basis. The violence  is almost always committed by cowards in pairs or packs, surrounding and outnumbering the gay or trangender person.

While the new law will likely not prevent gay bashing in many cases (criminals often think they can get away with a crime) I think it will help in some instances. This is because the law takes away the veneer of social approval for “putting gays in their place” and “giving them what they deserve.” If one listens to media interviews with gay bashers, they often think that society approves, on some level, of what they do. They see themselves as moral enforcers willing to do God’s work that others are afraid to do.

To the extent this law says otherwise, it will stigmatize such crimes and decrease the social reward. At least the violent thugs now understand that the state views their actions as rogue, not righteous. Thus, hate crime laws serve as a psychological deterrent, at least some of the time.

Sullivan might respond that existing laws already send that same message. But, much like bullying rules in schools, GLBT people must be explicitly mentioned, because prejudice runs so deep that many people see us outside the normal rules of civility. They believe that bullying, even murder, is wrong – unless it is committed against a gay person. If the victim is gay, you are “teaching him or her a lesson” or “cleansing” society.

The new law chips away at such bigotry and lets Americans know that GLBT people are part of society and included in the general rules of common decency. This won’t eliminate attacks, of course, but I suspect it will, over time, cause a reduction.