Posted on 04/24/2015 1:41:02 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It seems the New York Times has gotten itself all worked up because Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz attended an event in his honor at the Manhattan apartment of — gasp! — “two prominent gay hoteliers.” (Apparently one cannot simply be a ‘hotelier’ these days — a sexual identifier is required.)
It’s obvious that Times reporter Maggie Haberman thought she had found the smoking gun that would tarnish Cruz’s conservative credentials forever when she reported that he’s not a hateful bigot or something. ”Mr. Cruz said he would not love his daughters any differently if one of them was gay,” she wrote, adding that “He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states.”
CNN gave that statement the pretzel treatment and interpreted it to mean, ”His remarks seemed to signal a softening of his beliefs on same-sex marriage.” A spokeswoman for Cruz said in a statement later that the senator had “stated directly and unambiguously what everyone in the room already knew, that he opposes same-sex marriage and supports traditional marriage.”
“[T]he juxtaposition of Mr. Cruz being the guest of honor at a home owned by two of the most visible gay businessmen in New York City was striking,” a seemingly shaken Haberman wrote.
If you’re a left-leaning reporter who believes that the only reason half of Americans oppose same sex marriage is because they’re hateful bigots who are acting out of raw animus, events and statements like this cause you all kinds of cognitive dissonance and consternation. All good leftist reporters believe in the deepest recesses of their hearts that mean-spirited Republicans who disagree with the push for same sex marriage never, ever associate with gay people — unless they’re snooping around in their bedrooms.
But Haberman persisted, asking Ian Reisner, one of the hosts of the event, about the possible “dissonance” between his gay activism and being at an event for Cruz. “Reisner said that while he does not agree with Cruz on social issues, the two men do agree on national security and Israel. “Ted Cruz was on point on every issue that has to do with national security,” he said.
Though this may be difficult for some reporters to grasp, there are a lot of people for whom gay marriage is not the Great Litmus Test of the Ages (especially considering that it’s likely a done deal but for Justice Kennedy signing on the dotted line in June).
This may come as a surprise to reporters at the Times, but Senator Cruz — like most Republicans — has gay friends (and supporters) and he’s willing to engaging in dialogue with people with whom he disagrees. And guess what? This is not newsworthy.
Mati Weiderpass, one of the event’s hosts, expressed a similar sentiment on his Facebook page after apparently receiving some backlash:
Mati Weiderpass added 5 new photos.
New York University
Fireside chat with Senator Ted Cruz, his wife Heidi, and Kalman Sporn, along with Chef Anton Washington from KTCHN Restaurant, Kendall, Tyrone, Mark, and Yvette. It seems my informal dinner with the Senator has created a back lash. So there is no misunderstanding, I support gay marriage 100%. I have been a major supporter of gay causes and gay charities for two decades. People on both sides of the aisle need to be able to communicate with one another even when they ideologically disagree. As a Captain in the Army I worked tirelessly for the repeal of "Don't ask, Don't Tell". While serving on the Board of Directors for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network I needed to reach across the aisle to make that happen. The fact that Senator Cruz accepted the invitation to my home was a step in the right direction towards him having a better understanding of who I am and what I believe in. We spent most of the time talking about national security issues and in particular the challenges from ISIS, Iran, and defense of Israel -- these are issues for which we did find common ground. However, I did not shy away from the opportunity to ask the Senator about social issues, in particular marriage equality, and made it clear that I completely disagree with him on that issue.
How insulting and cruel is the NYT ... to homosexuals.
You don't see ANY moral difference between meeting with potential supporters who happen to be homosexual (which does not imply any approval of their lifestyle) and attending a same-sex marriage (which carries an implied approval of the ceremony as well as their lifestyle)?
Amazing that your common sense is so lacking...
My widowed friend recently remarried and her husbands oldest son is gay. My friends oldest daughter is also gay. They certainly are not going to stop loving them because of that, although they make it very clear to them that they do not condone it.
Libs are so used to painting moral objection as hate that they can’t distinguish the two.
“Moral Difference?” What part of abominations to the Lord and God don’t you get? These queers commit abominations just like the lesbians at the reception do. You are not that smart. More of a smart alec.
There is a HUGE moral difference between doing business with someone that may be involved in a sin that is unrelated to your business with them and participating in a ceremony intended to celebrate that sin. If you don't understand that difference, you are more dense than you first appear.
Even Jesus spent time with sinners. Merely being with a sinner does not imply approval or acceptance of their sin. If it is your intention to never be around anyone who sins, or do business with sinners, then you need to move out to the woods and live off the land as a hermit - otherwise, you are going to have to work with and be around people who are involved in things you find morally reprehensible. As long as you are not a partaker in their sin, nor approving of their sin, then you are not morally culpable for their actions.
Anyway you try to justify Cruz taking money from gays -you are wrong. There will more then likely be some high price down the road to pay for the donation. Any smart politician on the right would have bypassed these two plus the lesbian wedding reception. Now trying to justify which one is better then the other is like saying this sin is not as bad as that one. Some will say anything for MONEY.
So are you saying that for a politician to accept a campaign donation from a homosexual is a sin? Or that by accepting a donation, that makes him complicit in the sin of the person giving the donation? That is asinine.
Yes, Ted Cruz will be the president of all people, and that includes gays, lesbians, trans genders, cross dressers, feminists, abortionists, dope addicts, prostitutes, illegals, and all other abnormal people. Because we have all those inhabiting the country. The president must love them all. He does not have to like them. But he must protect every one. The constitution does not specify any exceptions except traitors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.