• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Sarah Palin told reporters that she would have no problem with the porn lobby being cosponsors and holding respected seats at the table at last week’s CPAC meeting. Nor does she have a problem with Planned Parenthood. After all, these are “different, diverse groups involved in political discourse” – so why not allow them all to crowd in under the “conservative” umbrella?

Actually, she didn’t say these things, but instead told Fox News “gay” groups had a right to be at CPAC. But, why not these others as well? Don’t they fit her broad qualifications, as stated above? Why not allow anyone or any group, truly, as long as they decide to label themselves “conservative”? Who cares if Rachel Maddow shows up, saying she’s a conservative? Hail to “conservatives” Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Al Sharpton! Why not?

Isn’t dialogue important?

Actually, no. When a group espouses a certain set of standards, there ought to be some “truth-in-labeling” involved. Are pro-lifers at NOW meetings? No, and for good reason. It’s called integrity. Their presence would signal an endorsement of abortion. Attendance says, “I will listen to these people.” But there are some points that are not open for discussion, not for people with strong convictions.

Discover what military personnel and decorated vets think of ending DADT in Whistleblower magazine’s dramatic February issue, “DROPPING THE H-BOMB”

Why would any Christian conservative listen to guys who have sex with each other and are working diligently to silence those who tell them this might not be a great idea? With traditional conservatives, the GOProud homosexual group has zero credibility, yet Sarah has just given them quite a bit. She has made a big mistake, if she believes there’s a legitimate “debate” that we can hold with sodomy advocates.

Like the pig in lipstick, homosexuality is still what it is, no matter how dressed up for the dance. It’s still designated sin in the Bible. God has not changed His mind on this. “Committed” relationships based in sin are still sinful.

And the deeply rebellious attitudes are still present and eventually surface. This week, GOProud leaders called opponent Tony Perkins of Family Research Council a “nasty bigot” and referred to social conservative groups boycotting CPAC as “losers.” Doesn’t Sarah get it yet? This is how these people dialogue. Venom for traditional values lurks beneath the surface, feeding what is already colossally bad judgment. Want to work on any “common ground” or “coalition building” with these folks? That’s a party I think I’ll miss, thank you very much.

These are renegades who hold irrational spite against high moral standards and those who hold them, evidenced by the name-calling and the in-your-face antics, like inviting, as their CPAC event headliner lesbian Sophie B. Hawkins, a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton. What are these people thinking, you ask? They are thinking no one holds them accountable, so why not be as depraved and outrageous as possible?

Sarah has experienced the wrath of many “gay”–friendly media types. One would think she wouldn’t be caving or pandering to them at this point. Palin is proving herself to be, possibly, just another compromising politician. She thinks there are “more important” issues we need to deal with than homosexuality. Conservatives and Christians who stand against homosexuality get that all the time when “gay” groups are seeking to plant their agenda even in traditional soil. “Look over there! Move on … nothing to see here!”

But the yield is the rotten fruit of rabid hostility against traditional sexual morality, the deconstruction of marriage, the indoctrination of children and the clamps on religious freedom the “gay” lobby is busy foisting on America. Wake up, Sarah!

When Palin sides with these slick deceivers, she shows a side I had hoped was not there. It’s the impulse to discard God’s Word if expedient. Homosexuality is a huge issue. If Palin doesn’t get this, she is just as incapable of leadership as she is being painted by incensed lefty bloggers, albeit for different reasons than the radicals claim.

I know some think CPAC never deserved a “conservative” label anyway. And there’s some truth to that. They lean libertarian, and that philosophy accommodates sexual license under the pretense of “live and let live,” failing to explain the poor track record of cultures so inclined. Libertarian ideology could only work in countries where libertines would still tolerate conservatives – which they never do – or in nations without children. Widespread “gay” identity politics twists truth and co-opts compromised heterosexuals, on the left and the faux right, and always corrupt the next generation.

Good luck, libertarians, in about 10 years. Because today’s kids embracing sexualized socialism (all cut from the same cloth) will vote for liberal values and left-wing politicians. Sexual gluttony and economic covetousness are twin brothers. Only traditional marriage and family values will sustain and nurture the country even you CPAC-ers say you want.

Hopefully, Sarah will change her mind and turn back to God’s standards on this issue. We need really informed, courageous leadership, and on this score, she is not showing it.

 


Linda Harvey is president of Mission America and a radio talk-show host in Ohio.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.