« Pam Bondi will appoint inspector general to investigate foreclosure lawyer dismissals | Main | Doctors testify in lethal-injection hearing »

Al Cardenas' wife, Diana: Gays 'are in our faces with public display of affection, gay parades, gay rallies, non-stop bombardment!!!'

The American Conservative Union -- now led by Miami attorney Al Cardenas -- has barred the conservative gay Republican group, GOProud, from sponsoring and fully participating at its next national convention.

Cardenas This week, Cardenas' wife Diana (Chief Operating Officer (COO) at The Cardenas Household," according to her Facebook profile) engaged in an interesting public exchange on the social network about gays and lesbians after GOP activist Ana Navarro posted comments concerning Texas Gov. Rick Perry's flip-flop last week on gay marriage:

 "I want a candidate w/strong informed opinions & beliefs & courage to stick by them even when not politically convenient. Is that too much to ask these days?" Navarro posted.

Here's Diana Cardenas' initial response to Navarro:

I would be very disappointed if Perry did not favor amending the Const to ban gay marriage. These gay marriage laws are destructive .... Marriage is a vital social institution between two members of the OPPOSITE sex. It goes way beyond just an emotional relationship---it serves a vital role in the stability and continuity of our society, something which homosexual marriages cannot provide. Unfortunately, the biggest victory of the gay movement has been to shift the debate from a 'behavior' to identity, whereby those that oppose homosexuality are considered bigoted or hateful. They have equated it to the Civil Rights Movement, seeking to obtain the rights granted under the constitution to all races or religions. Sexual behavior does not fall into either category!!!!It is not about homosexuals wanting to enter into a 'marriage' so much as it is about them wanting to gain acceptance into mainstream society by redefining the traditional definition of the institution. Because a few liberal judges decide to sign it into law, does not mean the public is in favor of it. Whenever it has been put on the ballot (as in California), it has failed.

Read and download the complete exchange at Steve Rothaus' Gay South Florida blog.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Gay haters hate too much for it to be just hate. A lot of it fear. And a friend says: Scratch a homophobe and find a closet case.

piggy piggy

latina pig wearing fur. oink oink

west coast guy

This woman seems consumed by fear. She's afraid, she's so afraid.


This is pulitzer material. We're here, talking about a person's opinion and comment on Facebook. Rothaus, be expecting a call from the NYT within the next few days, I'm sure of this!

For the record, GOProud barred themselves from CPAC with a specific anti-conservative viewpoint-- why would they be allowed to the next national convention?


Bigotry wrapped in dead animals, how creepy.


What an evil, wicked, despicable woman. She needs to repent.


This is ONE conservative who dares to be politically incorrect, maybe more should try it!


What an awful, wretched person this woman is. And her husband is clearly a neanderthal too. I've seen them both at functions around town but there is no question many in this community will think very differently about them after reading this.

harry houdini

The issue should not be gay relationships, it should be the government (city or county, or state) official certification via a marriage certificate of this union. There are gay couples living together and creating a loving family relationship. These folks have been silent on the issue of gay marriage for a long time. Its the younger, more politically active group that want the nation to see this as a "civil rights cause."

Once we change the definition of marriage to go beyond a female and a male union, sanctioned by the state, we are moving in the wrong direction as a nation. There is nothing wrong with people openly being gay or being married and raising a family together, we should NOT change the definition of the word marriage to accomodate a group of folks who want it THEIR WAY and use political muscle to achieve their goal!


Someone put a muzzle on that furry creature.

Tryin' to get it Straight

Will somebody please tell me how Gay Marriage threatens "marriage as an institution?" There will be just as many heterosexual marriages; not one, or an infinite number of gay marriages, will take away from that. So just how is the institution threatened?


I think the pic best sums up everything you need to know about "Lady" Diana.


Harry Houdini (above) is clearly an idiot. If this debate were truly about simply changing the definition of a word (marriage), the bigoted homophobic right-wing crowd should have no trouble supporting civil unions. But they don't support them (just ask NOM). No, this is about not wanting gays and lesbians to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. And that's just wrong. Since when has any political group not wanted it their way? As if conservatives aren't shoving their agenda down the nations throat? PUHLEASE!

Shame on the Media

Whats next guys? "i love 2 people equally. i cant be without either one in this life. As a human I have the right to love 2 people equally and be with both if i choose to. I want the state to recognize a marriage between 3 people. WE HAVE A RIGHT!" or how about
" i love animals. as a human i have a right to love animals. i want to marry my dog. lets gather together and lobby for humans and animals to be able to marry." ok the second example is a little extreme but you get the point. if the buck would stop there maybe you all would have a point. But it wouldnt and thats the problem!

thats the direction this takes us in. everyone has a right to love and be with whomever they want. But if we go around changing the policies, policies that were made based on thousands of years of human existence and behavior, that have built this nation we will be setting the stage for disaster.

everyone be free and be with whomever you choose but a recognized marriage cant be changed.

Jay Johnson

One consequence of the redefinition of marriage that is completely ignored by radical liberals is the denial of foster children's rights. Every child under the care of the State has a RIGHT to both mother and father. No child should be deprived by the State of the nurture and care both mother and father. Yes, there are many children raised by a single parent, but those children are not foster children. A foster child has a birthright to a mother and a father.

Once marriage is redefined to exclude either a mother or a father via homosexuality, foster children can legally be denied their birthright to both mother and father. The court will rule that homosexual partners must have access to foster parenthood like a real marriage has. Homosexual "marriage" is just as oxymoronic and impossible as male motherhood and female fatherhood are.

The comments to this entry are closed.