RSS Feed MenuRyan Sorba is a young man who, as Andrew Sullivan and others have put it, is bizarrely obsessed with sodomy. With the world economy in shambles, a fledgling war abroad, an exploding debt, and a healthcare fight that just won’t die, it seems awfully odd for a man to want to dedicate his life’s work to exposing the horrors of gay sex. Indeed, the CPAC straw poll results confirmed that nobody cares: same-sex marriage ranked as a top-two issue for only one percent of straw poll respondents — that is, about 25 people. So what’s the issue, here?
FrumForum contributor John Guardiano and many others have criticized me for accusing Sorba of being a closet homosexual. Growing up gay, I know what it’s like to want to hide it — and I know every trick in the book that’s used to go about doing so. There are certain behaviors that only those of us who have been there can really pick up on — it’s a dog-whistle kind of thing. When I was closeted, I opposed same-sex marriage, figuring that it was the ultimate way to hide my sexuality. When I was 14 and 15, I would spout the typical anti-gay lines, albeit less eloquently than Sorba. All of the gay men I showed the transcript to were laughing their asses off, recognizing exactly what was going on.
But the greater, more important point is this: my insults and Ryan Sorba’s are not morally equivalent. He is wrong about what he is telling me: homosexuality is not a “lifestyle,” and it is not an ideology. This is not an opinion. And when he tells me that he wants to use the force of the state to ban sodomy — including oral sex, anal sex, and fetishistic sex among consenting married couples — he is advocating a regressive, authoritarian policy that has no place in conservatism, libertarianism, or any belief system that honors freedom.
As I told a radio host earlier: even assuming Sorba is right, he hasn’t a clue how to go about reversing homosexuality. In the meantime, he wants not for us to engage in loving, monogamous relationships, but to condemn us to loveless, sexless lives, devoid of passion, romance, and sexuality. I cannot fathom the warped sense of life that a person must possess to want to tell his fellow beings to deny such an essential part of what makes them human. So yes, I absolutely rained down ad hominem attacks on Ryan Sorba: for there can be no respect toward the disrespectful, no kindness to the cruel.
balconesfault // Feb 22, 2010 at 8:33 am
Forgive the question … but why should anyone care about what Ryan Sorba thinks?
Carney // Feb 22, 2010 at 10:11 am
Social conservatism necessarily includes, as a irremovable core element, opposition to the gay political and cultural agenda.
Mitt Romney has rightly described conservatism as a “three legged stool”, needing healthy social, economic, and national-security legs to be steady and strong.
In such a large coalition there will necessarily be differing priorities, even frictions. Pro-family activists will be baffled by those focused on the capital gains tax; national-security hawks will find those more interested in ending abortion rather than defeating the jihad frustrating. Accordingly, to prevent a collapse into squabbling factions, conservatives, especially those who differ from the conservative stance on a particular issue, by and large have to tolerate, if not agree, with one another’s agendas.
This CPAC was a highly distorted subset of conservative activists, let alone of conservatives overall. By their own admission, the attendees were overwhelmingly economic conservatives, with only a few social conservatives, and a tiny handful of national-security hawks. No wonder Ron “Run Away and Let the Enemy Win” Paul won the straw poll. No wonder a speaker advocating traditional moral values at a “conservative” conference was booed. Citing this crowd’s reaction as dispositive or authoritative is misleading.
sinz54 // Feb 22, 2010 at 10:24 am
Unfortunately, Ryan Sorba’s views aren’t just his own.
The Michigan State University chapter of Young Americans for Freedom has displayed a similar bigotry toward gays. They also have flirted with Nick Griffin of the ultra-right-wing British National Party (BNP).
YAF was started in the Goldwater years as a libertarian right-wing organization. But it’s clear that some of its chapters have now been taken over by the Religious Right.
sinz54 // Feb 22, 2010 at 10:40 am
Carney:
Ryan Sorba made clear in his statements that he isn’t just opposed to the agenda of gay activists. he doesn’t want gays around. “GOProud,” a representative of which frequently posts here at FrumForum, is thoroughly conservative on economic and foreign policy matters. They are extremely patriotic too. Why should Mr. Sorba want them expelled from CPAC? He made it clear in his speech: He said civil rights in America are based on natural law, and what gays and lesbians do he said was unnatural. (Ergo, gays and lesbians aren’t entitled to civil rights; he left the audience to figure out that logical conclusion.)
That’s un-American.
When the Declaration of Independence said that all were entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they didn’t write in a clause excluding homosexuals.
Carney // Feb 22, 2010 at 11:15 am
sinz54, lots of people have various quirks, kinks, and non-standard desires. The issue is not whether they can or should show up to CPAC; it’s whether they should come AS SUCH, in a gathering of a movement that has traditional norms as a core value.
And “civil rights” has always been a deliberately vague and meaningless word, lumping in whether one should be permitted to vote or get a government job together with whether one can use the state to impose his unwelcome participation in a private business. Now it apparently means forcing social acceptance of deviant behavior.
rbottoms // Feb 22, 2010 at 11:37 am
They are extremely patriotic too. Why should Mr. Sorba want them expelled from CPAC?
Because the teabagger/birther/climate hoax/anti-science party don’t none of them f**s around?
The real question is why a gay man or woman would want to be a Republican in the first place? You’d think a quarter century of gay bashing featuring Santorum-like man on dog comments win be a hint that homosexuals aren’t welcome.
Closet queens however are highly encouraged to join.
GOProud could try being Libertarian, but they are really just Republicans who want to smoke pot and drive on toll roads.
sinz54 // Feb 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Carney: Now it apparently means forcing social acceptance of deviant behavior.
Here’s the Mission Statement from GOProud:
“GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.”
What part of that do you object to?
GOProud isn’t like ACT-UP. They really do believe in conservative principles.
mlloyd // Feb 22, 2010 at 1:06 pm
No one– no one– is more obsessed with gay sex than social conservatives like Larry Sorba and Larry Craig.
In a world where churches have their own rules for marriage that the state never touches– Church annulment is vastly different from civil divorce– and in which gay people exist and want to have families, there is no conservative reason to oppose gay marriage.
There’s a lot to be said for hitting the bully back. It’s hard for me to fault Alex Knepper.
sdspringy // Feb 22, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Really Mlloyd no is more obsessed with homosexual sex than Larry, well maybe you should throw Alex name in there as well.
As Alex stated all the many problems facing the country, his main concern is Larry.
As Alex stated homosexual marriage ranks very low as a priority, well ya, your at a conservative convention, what did you expect.
The most we can assume from Alex exposure to CPAC is that he is hung up on Larry and doesn’t understand why homosexual issues don’t bring all CPAC members together.
Wrong convention Alex.
sdspringy // Feb 22, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Substitute Ryan for Larry, if it matters.
ratgov // Feb 22, 2010 at 2:47 pm
If a person was gay and fiscally conservative, I think they would have a much better chance of swaying the democrats toward being more fiscally conservative then swaying the republicans toward accepting homosexuals (and being fiscally conservative
)
ktward // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Carney:
And “civil rights” has always been a deliberately vague and meaningless word …</blockquote.
'Deliberate'? by whom? 'Meaningless'?! WTF?
Uh, you don't happen to own a white pointy hooded robe, do you? Seriously dude, I think your statement might go down in the Top Ten Most Absurd Opinions ever. That said, it's a stretch but perhaps I'm in quasi-agreement with you, in that 'civil rights' is an ever-expanding umbrella born of societal advancement, providing essential legal recourse and protection. Good thing, too, or I likely would not enjoy my own voting rights.
ALEX:
Off-topic, I always appreciate your POV. (Agreement isn't a prerequisite for me.) As a parent of both a grad student and an undergrad, I'm only too aware that you guys are, indeed, collaboratively crafting the future of our country. So keep on keeping on.
On topic. Offensive as he is, Sorba-esque exclusionary outrage isn't new; the LGBT community is just today's most highlighted target. (Although, thinking out loud here … given Sorba's well-articulated obsession over the technicalities of gay male intimacy, I wonder what his take is on Lesbians? But I digress.)
While you may very well be correct and Sorba's a closet gay–your personal experience makes a compelling case, natch–I don't think that's the only nor necessarily even best explanation for Sorba's extremism.
Follow my reasoning:
Is the offensive language and 'racial superiority' long proclaimed by White Supremacist groups essentially nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric born of denial that they're secretly black (jew/any race or ethnicity other than their own narrow definition of 'white')?
Of course not. They are coalesced peeps with some serious psycho-social deficiencies who've historically organized to, and still do, make life miserable for certain other peeps in their xenophobic sights. Fortunately, thanks to specific and hard-won Civil Rights legislation, there now exists the protection of law and judicial recourse, among other societal advancements. No Utopia, but every generation sees a better day, paid for by the blood and sweat of the previous generation. Onward.
Point being, there's no shortage of hateful personalities suffering superiority complexes who organize and execute offensive acts toward people they deem otherwise dangerously deficient, by whatever rationalization works for them. In Sorba's et al case, it's the 'natural law' schtick.
Sorba's a drama queen. (Albeit a limp one- my own teenage daughter would grind his antics into dust. Just saying.) And his particularly incendiary song & dance appeals only to a small minority among even social conservatives. Case in point, his recent CPAC adventure.
But–and it's a big ol' but–the underlying basis of Sorba's argument with regards to marriage rights for gays is, sad but true, upheld by a majority of Republicans. Indeed, gays are pointedly discriminated against in the Party's own Platform: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm
Which begs the question (as another commenter already queried): why are you, Alex, an active Republican?
Really. I mean, for years I myself have conscientiously refused to re-register as a Republican specifically because of this and a few other personally intrusive (IMO) planks in said long-held Platform. And I'm hetero! FWIW, I'm a long-time registered Indie; the Dem Platform has historically been problematic (still is) on a few critical points, and Dem pols are notoriously ineffective–very little rubber on their road, Bill Clinton notwithstanding. So I vote seat practicalities, a particular candidate and their proven efficacy. Not a Party.
And I am–not to come off too self-important–the very voter, collectively, that virtually every State/National pol needs to win.
ktward // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Dammit. Sorry for the HTML coding bad. I’m old.
Carney // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:43 pm
ratgov, you are wrong there. The Democratic Party is the party of government. Its constituency groups are heavily skewed toward tax-eaters: government employees (including government schools at all levels), public sector unions, welfare recipients, criminals, etc. Other major Democratic constituencies who owe their livelihood to the state include affirmative action beneficiaries (a truly enormous group), private sector unions, diversity and environmental activists and consultants, etc.
It is overwhelmingly in the interests of the Democratic Party to expand government power and spending. The more people get hooked on government for their daily needs, the more people will be voting Democrat.
The ever-heavier burden on those who must support this increasingly heavy weight of free-riders, economy-wreckers, city-ruiners, and more, is ignored, or even celebrated.
pinkelephant // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:44 pm
rbottoms and ratgov,
I am a gay republican and I can tell you without any qualification, I have experienced more discrimination an ostracization from gays for my political beliefs than from conservatives for my sexual orientation. For every Ryan Sorba there are hundreds of others on the right who are happy to have a gay man in the fold largely sharing their vision of America, even if there a few differences on particulars. The narrative that the Republican Party or the conservative movement is full of homophobic, racist, Bible-thumpers just doesn’t hold up to my experience.
If you support civil equality for gays and lesbians, then surely you can see the advantage of advocating it in both political parties. I’m happy to stay a Republican because I see real progress being made in the Party, the reaction to Sorba being an example.
ktward // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Ratgov:
Interesting hypothesis. Within a wider context and with all reasonable intent, FF et al are employing a similar premise to influence, if not reshape, what is today an undeniably parochial Republican Party collective.
We’ll see what happens. But I like Alex, though I don’t always agree with him in all my road-weary wisdom. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek, and I’m no doubt personally biased toward his demographic’s perspective.)
ktward // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Pinkelephant:
LOVE (!) your clever moniker, btw.
As an Indie voter, I particularly appreciate the ‘personal experience’ POV vs. an Ideological POV.
That said, how do you, personally, ultimately reconcile the discrimination against gays in the Republican Party’s own Platform? I’m specifically and sincerely interested in *your* take on this general point of contention between the LGBT community and the Republican Party at large.
sinz54 // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:15 pm
pinkelephant: I have experienced more discrimination an ostracization from gays for my political beliefs than from conservatives for my sexual orientation.
I’m sure you have.
But it’s not morally equivalent.
Your fellow gays have turned on you because of the beliefs you have chosen for yourself. When you make choices, you have to accept consequences.
But Mr. Sorba, and those of his ilk, are against you because of what you ARE–what you were born with.
That’s a big difference.
Your fellow gays, by expressing their displeasure, hope to pressure you into changing your mind.
But Mr. Sorba is hoping to pressure you into suppressing your own identity.
rbottoms // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:18 pm
For every Ryan Sorba there are hundreds of others on the right who are happy to have a gay man in the fold largely sharing their vision of America, even if there a few differences on particulars. The narrative that the Republican Party or the conservative movement is full of homophobic, racist, Bible-thumpers just doesn’t hold up to my experience.
The difference here is what gets put in the party platform and what do the party’s loudest voices say.
The party of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are bible thumpers of the first order, which is fine since I’m a Christian. What I object to is the relentless push to thump those bibles in K-12 schools.
Your party doesn’t just have an official stance against abortion, it has a huge number of members against the idea of contraception itself.
Your party is full to the brim of people who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old with Fred Flintstone living side by side with the dinosaurs. Equally fine. A lot of people think Elvis is alive. But thanks to Texas and their solidly “conservative” school boards, people with those beliefs make teaching real science, which includes Darwin, difficult through their influence on what books get bought nationwide so their silly beliefs impact what everyone else gets taught.
You’d think conservatives would care about extortion levels of interest charged to poor folks, but no. Pollution? No, the EPA is job killer, of no use to real folks. OSHA? Nah, the market will decide if your employer gets to many of your co-workers killed.
The list of things Republicans and conservatives aren’t interested in is pretty damn long, but anal sex seems to be as important to them as winning the GWOT. Of course that period from 2003-2007 where it looked like we might actually lose in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t seem to rile them much.
Bottom line, the people you know who are ostracizing for being a member of the political party most associated with gay bashing, ignorance about AIDS, and a relentless push to keep people who love each other but happen to be of the same sex from enjoying their constitutional rights are basing their conclusion on what the GOP as a party does officially, not what a father with a gay daughter might do individually. Like say, Dick Cheney.
mpolito // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:25 pm
A quick note- I do not think much value can be placed in that poll you cite, if only because Ron Paul won it. We know that the FrumForum people are not happy about that.
jjv // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:40 pm
This is an old trope, if you oppose any jot or tittle of the gay agenda with any force you are accused of being gay. I don’t know this guy Sorba, but I think between someone who engages in it and spends time trying to make it acceptable and even laudable and someone who opposes it, who is obscessed is not clear.
Also, Andrew Sullivan is not a good guy to quote on who else is obscessed with sodomy. Finally, until 2003 laws against sodomy, lightly enforced were common place. It wasn’t some gestapo situation against homosexuals (or married couples). Only someone who was obscessed with the issue could think otherwise.
Obviously, it ought not be a big part of the agenda in any case. There are bigger fish to fry for conservatives. That is common sense but it ought not come along with accusations of homosexuality in those who think otherwise.
Good news for gay rights and fiscal sanity from CPAC - E.D. Kain - American Times - True/Slant // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:44 pm
[...] more on the Sorba scandal, see Alex Knepper. Ryan Sorba, if you don’t know already, is the author of The Born Gay Hoax. And he [...]
dragonlady // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:51 pm
balconesfault: “Forgive the question … but why should anyone care about what Ryan Sorba thinks?”
For once, I agree!
balconesfault // Feb 22, 2010 at 5:24 pm
jjv // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:40 pm
This is an old trope, if you oppose any jot or tittle of the gay agenda with any force you are accused of being gay.
That one has always bothered me as well.
There are a lot of people out there who just get off on hating people who are different than them. It is a very intense form of tribalism. Sometimes it’s over theology … sometimes it’s over politics … sometimes it’s over skin color … sometimes it’s over sexual orientation.
Sometimes the hatred is even warranted. And sometimes the hatred is cynically drummed up as a means of gaining control and power.
rbottoms // Feb 22, 2010 at 5:50 pm
This is an old trope, if you oppose any jot or tittle of the gay agenda with any force you are accused of being gay.
You misunderstand. What we are saying is there is recent high profile (and quite amusing to us) anecdotal evidence of the biggest GOP fag bashers being closet queens. But I understand assumptions do get made. I certainly get my chare of Jr. High jokes about my name, especially as a straight guy who supports gay rights.
And what the hell is the “gay agenda”?
Being able to get married, visit a sick lover in the hospital, to not be fired for what a person does in the bedroom? Yep, that’s right up there with Stalinism.