The email was from one Maggie Gallagher, who was sending around a standard NOM e-blast. I found the email gross, here two days before Christmas. So I immediately wrote back and said as much:

What then followed was one part overdue catharsis, one party needed therapy, one part fascinating/frustrating "culture war" experiment. Enjoy:

(please excuse typos on both ends)

Yes, she just said that she wants to legally divorce me. Oh yea, Merry Christmas. Riiiiiight.

Martha Stewart Weddings, Winter 2010 (15th anniv. issue):

(click for full size)

**SEE ALSO: Our full wedding album: 6/13/09
(**Photo credit: JAG Studios)

There are no words.

However, our eagle-eyed pal Andy Towle got past the sojourn to the land of couscous and noticed something else: That the rumored same-sex wedding is apparently still a plot point in the sequel:

SEX AND THE CITY 2 TRAILER FEATURES GLIMPSE OF GAY WEDDING [Towle]

Oh, we know what it is: The New York Senate in the movie probably votes to make the state's marriage recognition even wackier, requiring that same-sex couples not only flee the area in order to have their marriages solemnized, but also pay a visit to a major non-NATO U.S. ally before the union will be recognized. And Carrie, never meeting a situation in which she won't inject herself, trails along with the girls in tow. That's gotta be it, right?

And it couldn't have been Egypt -- Carrie would have exploded with all the "de-Nile" puns!

But as the more heated foes of the 'mos go back and forth about the group's supposed lack of worthiness by virtue of the members' sexual orientations, the even more fundamental flaw in the GOProud sponsorship plan is emerging. That basic flaw: That CPAC is really no place for a gay group with "proud" in their name!

Why do we say this? Well here, check out these snippets from an email that WorldNetDaily has posted:

In his e-mail response, [David Keene, the chief of the American Conservative Union] admitted GOProud "has signed on as a CPAC co-sponsor, but will have no speakers and we told them that, in fact, since opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives, these topics are not open to debate."
...
But Keene's e-mail defended the agreement, explaining GOProud's "interest is in demonstrating that not all gays are liberals rather than promoting their life style.

"Their group broke away from the Log Cabin Republicans a few years ago because they thought the LC folks were too liberal on other issues (taxes, spending, national defense and guns)," Keene wrote.

"I know that there are those who are as opposed to the sinner as the sin, but our view is that CPAC is inclusive and welcomes all of those who agree with us on most issues. I don't know the GOProud people personally, but we find it difficult to exclude groups because of disagreements on one or two issues no matter how important many of us believe those issues to be … other examples: we have pro-life and pro-abortion co-sponsors, advocates of restrictive and more open immigration, supporters and opponents of the war in Afghanistan and supporters and opponents of some of the restrictions adopted in the war on terror since 9/11," he continued.

"Some of these issues draw significant support on both sides of the question from the broad movement and these we often debate at CPAC … trade policy, immigration are example … while others like abortion are consensus positions and while we accept those who differ from the consensus, we see no reason for further debate. Gay issues fall within this category," he said.
Conservatives alarmed by 'gay' sponsorship of CPAC [WND]

So basically, presuming WorldNetDaily's presentation of this email is accurate, Mr. Keene is saying that there will be no discussion of matters like marriage equality. This even though GOProud's fellow sponsors include groups like the National Organization For Marriage, whose sole conversation will be about the denial of same-sex unions! So what, pro-gays aren't allowed to push back against the supposed "consensus"?! They are allowed to join a big tent, just as long as they don't indicate a desire to throw a wedding reception under one? Forget being gay for a second -- what sort of politico would even go along with such a limitation?

Oh, and GOProud is acceptable to Mr. Keene because they are not "promoting their life style"?! When exactly did one's in-born truth become a "life style" while their political affiliations became non-negotiable truths?!

No, no, no, no! The truth, of course, is that the matter of LGBT's people worth is not open for debate! But that is EXACTLY what Mr. Keene is presenting as a contentious issue. And GOProud is going right along with this idea, signing on to a set of rules that allows any and everyone (NOM, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women For America, etc.) to show up and bash LGBT people's lives and loves for sport, yet wants GOProud to serve only as some sort of pretty ornamental piece that'll help prove to conservatives that not all gays are liberals. There is no way for CPAC to defend these offensive positions. There is no way for GOProud to defend this sponsorship!

The dissension in the social conservatives' ranks is like a sitcom ("The 'fraidy Bunch"? "The Skewed Adventures of Old Christians"? "Cougar (who eats his own) Town"?), one that we watch with both interest and amusement. But the idea that there are LGBT brothers and sisters who are willing to overlook CPAC's own dissension with the gay "life style"? Well we find that the opposite of funny.

These are the names that Change.org's Michael Jones has pinpointed as the "The Top [six] Straight Allies in Congress for 2009." Go find out why and how this Capitol Hill quintet sextet has chosen the pro-gay lifestyle:

The Top Five Straight Allies in Congress for 2009 [Change.org]

***

**Ed. note: I thought it went without saying, but a comment suggests otherwise. So just to clarify: I was being silly with the "chosen the pro-gay lifestyle" quip.

But then the entire article is mooted when Esther's boss, Focus on the Family communications president Gary Schneeberger, closes out the article by saying the following:

As for revising the positions that are alienating youth, though, that's not really in the cards. "The things we stand for, especially in the policy realm, are things that are rooted in our understanding of the Scripture," says Schneeberger. "So when we say we think we believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that's not going to change."

So essentially, they've pinpointed the reality (they are losing millennials) and realize the reason (their message is antiquated and offensive to younger people), but they're not going to drop the one thing (intolerance) that's causing them to bleed the most. They want the cool factor, but don't want to cool the most crucial factor! It's absurd outreach, really. It'd be kind of like the NRA thinking that by converting all of the existing DVDs of the film to Blu-Ray format, they could negate the bad PR that Bambi has leant to their pro-guns campaign!

The truth: As long as Focus' song remains the same, it doesn't really matter what hipped up crooner they hire to sing it. No young person is gonna suddenly start thinking that gay folks are anything less than part of the human fabric, simply because the person that's telling them as much happens to be wearing skinny jeans. And to be quite honest: It's offensive hubris for FOF to even suggest that they can or should be able to reach those in their Twilight years without adapting the discriminatory rhetoric that was shaped by those in their twilight years!

xoxo,

The Gossip this Girl's hearing says it's not gonna happen!

**The full Mother Jones article: grand old party [MJ]

****Our earlier take: FOF hopes 80's/90's-born voters were also born yesterday [G-A-Y]