Some additional notes on the booing...

After the presidential debate on Thursday night, I wrote a late night post about what I had personally witnessed regarding a few individuals who booed after a gay soldier's question to the candidates. The post got a lot of very passionate responses and has more comments than any other post on this blog.

I received criticism from those who felt I didn't condemn the booing strongly enough and from those who did not believe my depiction of what happened. As to the first issue, my apologies. As I mentioned at the beginning of the post, it was very late at night and my goal was to just write and publish my observations about the booing at the debate, not take the time to discuss broader issues.

So let me be clear: I absolutely, positively do not support booing a soldier for asking an honest question, period. I absolutely, positively do not support booing a gay man for asking an honest question, period. I strongly believe that the few individuals who booed were awful, classless, jerks. They were an embarrassment to my state, my Republican party, and all the wonderful people who worked so hard to plan the Presidency 5 events this week, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

And, for the record, I stated my opinion about DADT back in June 2010:

Sunshine State Sarah | Don't Ask Don't Tell = Hypocrisy + Liberal Logic

The standard arguments in favor of keeping the policy tend to fall into two categories: (1) concerns about sexual relationships causing drama among those serving together, and (2) the belief that gays in the military present some sort of security threat by endangering a unit's camaraderie or morale.

...The second concern is the one that really drives me bonkers.  If gays in the military are really a security problem, or a threat to a unit's morale, if they are really so "dangerous", then how can they magically not be dangerous anymore if they lie about it?  I cannot think of any other situation where the rule is that a particular prohibited activity is fine as long as you lie about it first.  

Is it OK if someone on the No-Fly List gets on a plane, as long as they have a fake ID?  Is it OK if someone opens a credit card in your name, as long as they've stolen your identity first?  Is it OK for someone to get a well-paid job, as long as they lie on their resume?  Of course not.  So if being gay is really, truly, a "threat" to morale, national security, or whatever, why do we allow them in the military if they lie about it?  Isn't dishonesty a threat to morale and security too?

Now, whether gays are really "dangerous" or "security threats" or whatever, count me among the skeptical.   I don't pretend to have life all figured out.  I certainly don't have all the answers and I cannot pretend to know how we really will be judged in the end.  I do see a distinction between certain radical liberal groups that advocate things like teaching graphic sexual information in elementary schools, and gay couples that just want to buy a nice little house in the suburbs and be left alone to live their lives.  I find myself unable to condemn anyone whose actions are motivated by genuine love for another human being. 

Now, regarding the skeptics: it was only a few individuals who booed. And I'll admit my 3:30 a.m. writing may have been a little inartful: "resonated" is much more accurate description than "echoed" for the effect of the concrete floor. And yes, even with the chairs and the people, the concrete floor was noisy. Another thing to remember is that the media were in a separate room, on another floor, and completely removed from the concourse space where the debate was held. Most of the press did not hear the debate "live" - they watched on video screens set up in the Google-sponsored media room:

Photos by Local 6 WKMG reporter, Lauren Rowe

In other words, the vast majority of the media who reported on the booing did not hear it live. Two people who were there live are Fox News' Megyn Kelly and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Here's a video interview from yesterday in which they discussed the controversy:


Santorum: 'I Condemn The People Who Booed That Gay Soldier'

(Hat tip: American Power)

Note that Kelly confirms that it was only a few individuals and Santorum says he didn't even hear it. As I mentioned, the booing was about 100 yards from the stage. I've helped set up events like this and they often try to manage the acoustics in a way to minimize what crowd noise can reach the stage. 

Finally, I would like to address one of the comments from yesterday's post that really struck me, by a woman who listed her name as "Angie:"

I wish there was a home for me in the Republican party. Obviously, there is not. It ain't even about the booing. It's about the policy positions/platform and statements from the candidates themselves. How is the mother of a gay son supposed to feel at home with this bunch?

Angie, many Republicans agree with me, especially the younger generations. And there are differences between the candidates' positions on this issue. Even the candidates who are the most socially conservative, many of them are speaking from a place of wanting to promote happy, stable, healthy families, not judge anyone. I'm not willing to budge on the pro-life issue - I believe that abortion ends a life, and I don't see a way to "negotiate" that - but as I wrote last year, "I find myself unable to condemn anyone whose actions are motivated by genuine love for another human being."

I don't know where you live or how old you are, but I would invite you to check out your local Young Republican meeting or county's Republican Executive Committee meeting and talk to the people there and judge for yourself. I'll be honest, there are Republicans who believe that homosexuality is a sin and are opposed to gay marriage, but there are Democrats who believe that as well. If you'll allow me to just be bluntly practical for a moment, I spend a lot of time at Republican and conservative events, and the overwhelming focus is on the economy, the national debt, and out-of-control government spending. Gay marriage, DADT, etc. are simply not going to be factors in this election, and if we elect a new Republican president, he or she will have been elected by voters who are angry about the economy and the waste and corruption of the federal government. There just won't be any strong grassroots demand for turning back the clock on these issues.

So, for all my new readers, thanks for visiting my website, reading what I have to say, and sharing your thoughts. I hope I have clarified things a bit for you. Today is another busy day with the presidential straw poll and wrap up of Presidency 5. I'll post more updates later from all the events this week.