Do you really stand for liberty?

In my never-ending quest to catch up on what's happening in the world, I just listened to a vigorous debate on radio station KLZ in Denver. Two talk radio hosts whom I admire and respect, Kris Cook and Ken Clark, debated the decision by Colorado Christian University not to accept money from the Log Cabin Republicans to host a booth at this summer's Western Conservative Summit.

Since the debate was aired, a compromise has been reached. Steve House, the newly elected leader of the Republican Party in Colorado, approached John Andrews, the man who puts together the Western Conservative Summit for Colorado Christian University. House offered to have the Log Cabin Republicans exhibit at the Colorado Republican Party booth. His offer was accepted by Andrews.

Now the question in my mind is, will the leftist gay movement accept the compromise? I doubt it.

Kris was arguing another, related point: Does the government really have any right to have anything to do with defining marriage? Ken replied that government first got involved because of interracial marriage, and he agreed with Kris that government should have no involvement in defining marriage. Kris termed it using government to promote a theocratic, Biblical worldview, and that it is hypocritical to then say you are doing it because you stand for liberty!

Ken pointed out that Christians are being persecuted. They are actually being killed by jihadists, and persecuted here at home. He wants Christians to stand on their principles, and he admires John Andrews for doing just that.

Kris noted that the Conference is trying to get conservatives elected "so they can use the guns of government." She does not want the Republican Party to turn away allies, like the Log Cabin Republicans. Her point is that government needs to be rolled back, and we individual Americans need more, not less liberty! She further points out that gay Republicans have many allies, especially among Millennials and Generation Z citizens (That's the first time I have heard that term), and Republicans need every citizen they can get in order to promote liberty. She argued that the Republican Party needs to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.