The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations, Libertarian Edition: When Not Openly Hating on Gays Means You Just Might be a Libtard

Here's Sarah Palin talking about CPAC, the big conservative
hooh-hah starting later this week in DC. The news this year is that
folks such as The Heritage Foundation and Sen. Jim "You
can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social
conservative" Demint (R-S.C.)
are refusing to participate because groups such as GOProud, an
openly gay organization, are attending. Palin is getting props for,
as Breitbart.tv (from which the clip is filched (not felched!))
puts it, "throw[ing]
support behind GOProud participation at CPAC." Here's what she
said:

?Well, I?ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a
little taken aback this go around when I couldn?t make it to this
one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or
disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing.
It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and
David, perhaps what it is that you?re suggesting in the question is
should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not
participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within
those forums are issues that maybe we don?t personally agree with?
And I say no, it?s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of
the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good
information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is
needed in order for people to gather information and make up their
own minds about issues. I look at participation in an event like
CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the
more information that people have the better.?

The person who brought the vid to my attention,
Michael Zeldis, gave his mass email the subject line, "Palin
showing her libertarian leanings."
It suddenly just got a lot easier to be a libertarian! I don't
think anybody has to "agree" with anybody about anything to be a
libertarian, and I suppose Palin's comments are welcome compared to
the actions of Demint and Heritage Foundation types. But what's it
mean not to "personally agree with" gays and lesbians? That they
aren't really attracted to their own genders? That they don't
deserve equality before the law, which would mean equal standing
when it comes to marriage, adoption, and public-sector employment
protections (such as being teachers)? Acceptance of "teh gays"
officially became a mainstream position last year,
when 52 percent of enlightened (or maybe just curious)
Americans agreed that gay and lesbian relations were "morally
acceptable." Only 43 percent of respondents in a Gallup poll
thought they were unacceptable (but that they'd be willing to watch
under the right circumstances).
If the GOP wants to be the majority party of a U.S.A. ready to
sashay its limp-wristed-men-and-ladies-wearing-combat-boots way
into the 21st century, they might want to be, you know, actually
accepting of gays and lesbians who love not just the wrong gender
but a minimal state. Indeed, given a terrible history of harassment
by the state at all levels, you'd figure that GOPpers would
understand that the third, fourth, fifth, et al sexes would be
totally into less government regulation of their lives and
workplaces. Instead of being likened to, shoot, "a bunch of the
liberal folks."
That this sort of thing is even an issue, especially among those
who claim they want government out of their lives, is surely one of
the reasons why fewer than one-third
of Americans identify themselves with the GOP.

lesbian life lesbian interest lesbian blogs