Posted on 04/23/2015 7:06:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This NYT story, an obvious attempt at a gotcha that’ll damage Cruz among his base, will do more damage to the two businessmen within their own circle of allies, I suspect. It’s one thing for Ted Cruz, social conservative, to socialize with gay friends. It’s another for gays to socialize with — gasp — Ted Cruz, social conservative.
During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay. He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states.
The dinner and “fireside chat” for about a dozen people with Mr. Cruz and his wife, Heidi, was at the Central Park South penthouse of Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, longtime business partners who were once a couple and who have been pioneers in the gay hospitality industry.
“Ted Cruz said, ‘If one of my daughters was gay, I would love them just as much,’” recalled Mr. Reisner, a same-sex marriage proponent who described himself as simply an attendee at Mr. Weiderpass’s event…
Mr. Cruz also told the group that the businessman Peter Thiel, an openly gay investor, is a close friend of his, Mr. Sporn said. Mr. Thiel has been a generous contributor to Mr. Cruz’s campaigns.
If you think, as the NYT obviously does, that opposing gay marriage necessarily means you’re driven by hatred of gays, then yeah, that’s one odd dinner party. And in fairness, some of Cruz’s rhetorical flourishes during the gay rights/religious liberty debate did make him seem less likely to attend an event at the home of SSM supporters than, say, Jeb Bush might be. But Cruz doesn’t categorically oppose gay marriage, as the Times is forced to admit. He’s personally opposed but thinks the states should decide, even if that means the practice is gradually legalized. Nor is it news that Cruz’s base includes some prominent gay right-wingers. Peter Thiel, a libertarian, has been donating big bucks to him for years, starting back when he ran for AG of Texas. Weiderpass and Reisner are apparently strong supporters of Israel, an obvious point of common ground with Cruz. Other potential Cruz backers, although straight themselves, are outspoken in supporting gay marriage despite their alliance on most other issues with the GOP. The most famous example: David Koch, one half of the “Kochtopus” that haunts lefty dreams nightly. Cruz seems to respectfully disagree with most SSM supporters, assuming they’re not trying to shut down pizzerias for declining to cater gay weddings, and some famous SSM supporters seem to respectfully disagree with him. (Shucks, even Mike Huckabee cops to having gay friends.) If you liked him before reading this, why would you like him less now?
But I don’t know. Maybe I’ve achieved a status of such candy-ass RINO-hood that the Times’s radar on what will and won’t alienate social conservatives is better than mine. Supporting gay marriage obviously will alienate them. Attending a gay wedding might (although opinion seems to be divided on that) for a similar reason, namely, that some who regard marriage as a sacred union between men and women conclude that that means they shouldn’t tacitly recognize a gay marriage by witnessing it. It’s not clear what sacred precept is violated, though, by saying you’d love your daughter no less if she were gay; it’s even less clear which one forbids having dinner at a gay friend’s home. But I’ll leave that to the comments to hash out. In the meantime, WaPo finds 61 percent now support gay marriage, a new high nationally although not dramatically higher than the numbers have been in recent years. Republican opposition is strong at 34/63, but interestingly not as strong when you ask whether states should be allowed to ban the practice. In that case, support stands at just 52/45. Maybe there’s some small section of SSM opponents who think that gays nonetheless have a constitutional right to marry. Other than that, I’m not sure what explains the discrepancy.
Sorry, your posts just crack me up. Have to check and make sure I haven’t landed in Alex Jones territory. Yikes
I’m just going by the past, things like the dramatic expansion of the NSA operations under GWB - which at the time, in my blissful ignorance, what little I heard about it I thought was “no big deal”.
It never dawned on my little pea brain that a communist would be installed as President and use that same machinery.
I was completely unaware of the William Binney information.
Alex Jones is not really against new world order, so I rarely if ever look at anything there.
In a rational world, I agree. In this irrational emotion driven society where a President would get elected by a reality show called “Dancing with the Presidents”, it matters. It has become a militant movement, hostile to anyone who doesn’t join them. These voters get everything for free and special protections, Loretta Lynch for example, selected only based on color and gender.
I also doubt we have had a fair election since Reagan, but that’s beside the point.
What else is the left going to run on? Certainly not the economy or foreign policy, so this is where we are.
“All the news that’s fit to print. And then some”
Yeah, these weasels know exactly what they’re doing. Politico got John McCain to attack Cruz the other day with a deceptive paraphrase:
The most politically charged term out there. Used for completely the wrong reason. If someone has a phobia, it implies that they really can’t help but fear something, often a developed defensive response to trauma. I would estimate that the majority of people called homophobic by leftists wouldn’t fit the description, which would mean, it it were a genuine phobia that they got raped and are now scared that some homosexual individual would try raping or attacking them. Phobia does not make a person a monster, it means a person has an issue due to real problems that they suffered or are suffering, and usually a preservation response gone a little out there. Very few people match that description, leftists throw out the term for anyone who slightly disagrees with anything pushed by a far-left homosexual, which does not describe an aversion, or a trauma-based fear, but rather is an insult or a slur for anyone who thinks differently. Chances are, the businessmen are with Log Cabin Republicans or some group of that sort and are willing to take agreement on issues of fiscal or foreign policy, even if Cruz isn’t for pushing SSM down everybody’s throats.
“It’s only bad when Ted Cruz does it.... no matter what ‘it’ is.” — New York Times
RE: Cruz said “he would have no problem” if a daughter were gay when in fact he said he would love her just as much
I would personally be saddened if my daughter were gay, but yes, like Cruz, I would love her just as much.
But I would NOT want her to have a sexual, much less a marriage relationship with another woman as counsel her as much.
There is a HUGE difference between loving a person and accepting a sinful lifestyle.
Jesus loved (AGAPE in Greek) the adulterous woman and did not condemn her, yet, the told her to SIN NO MORE. I would say the same to my daughter.
THAT is what liberals ( like the folks at the Times ) do not seem to get.
RE: So then, he’s NOT a “homophobe”?
Neither are most conservatives that I know.
That term is used as a tool to bludgeon conservatives and to propagate stereotypes that conservatives are evil, intolerant basterds.
You passed the mercy test. Mercy is a big one in The Book. Indeed...Love the sinner and hate the sin.
Used with a completely wrong meaning too. Being phobic is something that you can only do so much to help. I am phobic about snakes, because I had to go to the hospital and get antidote for a poisonous snakebite. So I developed the fear out of preservational instinct and trauma. I do not feel anywhere near the same toward a homosexual. Although if I had a traumatic rape experience from a guy I probably would have legitimate phobia and not want to be alone with a guy for a reason of prior trauma. But that’s different, because it doesn’t paint a picture of an inhuman monster (the intention of the left) so much as a person stuggling with a very human issue. The reasoning of the left is disgusting on its face.
That's a misnomer, and I wish Cruz and the rest of the Republican candidates would quit saying it. It's that kind of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place.
As Lincoln, in his famous 1858 "House Divided" speech, said of slavery,
"I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free...It will become all one thing or all the other."
Lincoln knew what was happening around him in politics and the law. In his speech he describes in exquisite detail the political and legal process that was inexorably forwarding the pro-slavery cause throughout the 1850s. He had enough vision and wisdom to understand the inevitable course of deeply moral things that turn on the natural law, as instituted by God. Good cannot quietly, passively coexist and compromise with evil and remain good. And evil is compelled to try to destroy good wherever it exists. Even if evil can't kill good outright, it is more than happy to kill it by the slow poisoning of incremental compromise. But either way, the victim is just as dead. It's only a matter of time.
In any case, fundamentally, the decision about marriage is not up to federal judges, or to the states, or even to the people. It's a matter that God Himself decided, from the beginning, when He created, defined, and instituted marriage.
Matthew 19:4-64 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
In the initial national platform of the Republican Party in 1856 the party's primary purpose was established, which was to combat what they called "the twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy."
Make no mistake, polygamy is barbaric. And "gay marriage" is even more barbaric.
Anyone who thinks the American republic can survive as a barbaric institution, in whole or in part, is fooling themselves.
Marriage and the natural family, conformed to the laws of nature and nature's God, are absolutely essential to the survival of our civilization and form of republican self-government.
Re: “But when you say “the sinner” we must be clear that Jesus did not die for all men, only the elect.”
You and I are not going to agree on this. I do not believe that Calvinism’s God is the God of the Bible. Obviously you do. I’ve been through all of this with a very close friend and I really don’t care go through it with you.
I guess my one observation would be is, with the God of Calvinism, one has no assurance that one is saved, nor can you tell your family members or friends that God loves them and wants them to come to salvation, because you don’t know that either. What do you tell your children, that MAYBE God loves them, or that maybe He wants them to fry in Hell for eternity? I mean who knows? It could be either.
Just because you “think” you are saved is no guarantee that you are - remember nothing you do or say or think has anything to do with your salvation - it is all up to God’s own choosing. Maybe you just think you are saved, or God has sent a “lying” spirit to you. You never know for sure. It doesn’t matter what you think you believe - it is totally up to God. It would be arrogant to believe that YOU are among the chosen Elect. What real assurance do you have of salvation? A feeling? A belief you think you hold? Pretty shakey foundation.
**guess my one observation would be is, with the God of Calvinism, one has no assurance that one is saved,***
Yes. You do. If you put your faith in Jesus for your salvation you are one of the elect
** nor can you tell your family members or friends that God loves them**
Which, BTW, is no a Biblical model for evangelism.
**and wants them to come to salvation, because you don’t know that either.**
So we preach the Gospel to all, because we don’t know who is elect and who isn’t.
Most of the homosexuals I ever knew at public school had been previously married and really loved their own kids - mostly girls.
Another observation: As whacked out as some of the students may have been, it seemed most teachers - homo and straight - were the most adolescent therein.
>>Most of the homosexuals I ever knew at public school had been previously married and really loved their own kids - mostly girls.
Very true. Human sexuality is fluid dependent on the desires of the human. Anyone who says otherwise is basically calling gays genetically defective and unable to choose who they fall in love with.
re: “If you put your faith in Jesus for your salvation you are one of the elect.”
But, what assurance do you have that you have “put your faith in Jesus”? You have nothing to do with it, so how do you KNOW that you really have “put your faith in Jesus”?
re: “So we preach the Gospel to all, because we don’t know who is elect and who isn’t.”
So, you tell them that maybe God loves them, and that maybe God will choose them to be one of His Elect? Is that what you tell them? Do you tell them that they may be one of the ones who are destined for Hell?
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.