Some of us who really are social conservatives are wondering what in the world Sarah Palin was thinking when she "retweeted" (I can't believe this term has now become part of our political discourse) the, shall we say, unpleasant comments of one Tammy Bruce, a pretend-conservative lesbian (why would anyone believe that this person is conservative?) apropos of people opposed to homosexuals in the military. Palin isn't saying anything, while Bruce is strutting about telling everybody that, among other things, it means that Palin condemns the CPAC boycott by social conservatives because of the inclusion of GOProud at CPAC! That's pretty amazing: It would be more plausible for Bruce just to say that Palin agreed with Bruce on the issue of homosexuals in the military.
And I have to admit, that hypothesis is certainly significantly confirmed by the "retweet." Short of "Palin's Twitter account was taken over by mischievous liberal friends or family and she doesn't want to admit this" or "Palin mindlessly retweets things she disagrees with and just assumes people will figure it out and then doesn't clarify when the people she disagrees with go about boasting that she agrees with them" it's difficult to see what else it could mean. I suppose there's also, "Palin mindlessly retweets things she just thinks are mildly interesting and thinks people might want to think about and then simply can't be bothered to clarify when the person she retweets goes about telling everyone what she supposedly thinks about CPAC." The third is what you might call the second-place runner-up in terms of explanatory power for the evidence, but I just threw in the other two for laughs.
It's not looking good. Here, apropos of the same topic, is the VP debate clip between Biden and Palin on homosexual issues, in which they end up by celebrating their agreement. (HT Jeff Culbreath) My own interpretation is this: Biden means to be enthusiastically endorsing civil unions and all other aspects of the homosexual agenda short of homosexual pseudo-marriage. Palin means to be condemning homosexual "marriage," sort of flirting with civil unions without making any clear statement, and saying nothing about everything else, leaving herself the opportunity to make it up as she goes along later. The obvious follow-up question, which unfortunately is not asked, is, "What do each of you think of civil unions?" I wonder what the answers would have been.
It could be true, as Lawrence Auster has said, that anyone who says that he favors civil unions but not homosexual "marriage" actually does favor homosexual "marriage" but hasn't decided to admit it yet. It certainly makes a good line, and seems to be true of many (like our President, for example).
But I think there are people, like Palin, about whom it isn't true. The trouble is this: While such people's opposition to homosexual "marriage" was sincere at the time, it was conceptually unfounded, and they really, really wanted to avoid outright offending the homosexual lobby. Hence, their sincerity at the time may be moot.
One of Auster's commentators has said that only the religious right remains to oppose the full triumph of the homosexual agenda. I think he's right. Let's hope the religious right actually does it--opposes the agenda, that is. If Palin becomes our standard bearer (and I do consider myself to be a proud member of the religious right), things don't look too good there, either.
The time of testing is coming. It won't be very long before Sarah Palin and all like her who said that they really, really opposed homosexual "marriage" will have to find out not only what they meant at the time, but whether their opposition had any roots to it. Once everything else has been granted, that will be demanded. If they have embraced the homosexual agenda on everything else in the meanwhile, that last stand, too, will wither and die in the midday sun.
Speaking of the religious right and defiance, I want to present this video and song, which I just saw the night before last. The Booth Brothers--"Under God."
In the intro. on the concert video, from a concert in 2005, gospel tenor Michael Booth introduces the songwriter, Phil Johnson, and says that he and co-writer Sue Smith wrote the song in response to the attempt to have "under God" taken out of the pledge. Note, too, the allusion in the lyrics to Judge Roy Moore at about 2:26, reflected in the video.
The really strong religious right has been willing to fight for decades now, and the history of this song represents that fighting spirit.
What we need now are members of the religious right willing to carry on, even in areas so distasteful that normal people understandably don't want to talk about them, and to resist to the last gasp. Unfortunately, while it may or may not be legitimate to vote for Sarah Palin in some future election, Bruce may also be right when she says that Palin is "not a culture warrior." More's the pity, because culture warriors are the leaders we need today.