About me

Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian, with her bassoon after a concert, September 18, 2011.

Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian, with her bassoon after a concert at the Bel Air Arts Festival in Bel Air, Maryland, September 18, 2011.


Thanks, Iowahawk, for the recognition:
Iowahawk 2008 International Blog of the Year Award for Outstanding Merit in Thinking about Blogging in 2008

Iowahawk 2008 International Blog of the Year Award for Outstanding Merit in Thinking about Blogging in 2008

January 12, 2009: I am a 56-year-old lesbian and over the course of the presidential campaign in 2008, my political views transformed from those of a lifelong liberal, Democrat and global warming believer to those of a fiscal conservative who rejects theories of anthropogenic climate change because we are so totally NOT more influential on the climate than the sun, sunspots, the ocean and ocean currents. (Ever the heretic wherever I go, even as a liberal, I wanted a nuclear power plant on every block, due to my love of cheap electricity and my aversion to freezing in the dark, so no change there.)

When I learned in November 2008 that Barack Obama had announced his intention to purge the Democratic party of everyone with common sense centrists, and because I’m not wishy-washy because I did not want to register as independent or undecided — plus I have had bitter experiences at the hands of liberal fascists when I tried to get them to observe their stated principles and figured a change of scene would do me good — I decided to try my fortunes among Republicans and registered as a Republican in December 2008.

I feel better already.

I am more than a little embarrassed that my liberal views were transformed into conservative ones by repeated encounters with facts and math. It’s not that I wasn’t interested in politics, I was. I grew up reading newspapers and news magazines and watching Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid! I read the columns of that prissy adulterous anti-gay hypocrite and gasbag respected conservative George Will. I was a small town newspaper reporter covering politics for the Harford Democrat from 1980 to 1982!

However, since all of my friends are liberal Democrats, I knew I had to research my new point of view. I spent over 100 hours online researching Obama, Black Liberation Theology, global warming/climate change, liberalism and conservatism.

I finally saw that there is a tipping point in the amount of taxes you have to pay to support the federal, state and local governments after which you have lost ability to support yourself and your family, to create and grow your business as an entrepreneur, and the right to use your own money for yourself and the causes YOU want supported, which often are causes that never would be supported by government.

That was the moment I accepted fiscal conservatism as my personal lord and savior.

There is more about me, and my late life partner of over 20 years, Margaret Ardussi, here.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }

Lester Kovac February 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Hi Cynthia,
I am trying to get in contact with Hubert Yockey, who in years 1979, 1980 and 1982 paddled canoe down Caniapiscau (Kaniapiscau) River in Northern Quebec. Internet search suggests you might be a relative? If so, could you help me to get in touch with Hubert?
Thank you,


Jeremayakovka March 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Welcome to the blogosphere, Cynthia. It’s the Democrats’ loss, the Republicans’ gain.


ex-Democrat March 6, 2009 at 10:20 am

Welcome to the light …. check out http://www.MarkLevinShow.com … my fave conservative talk radio show host.


Steve Poling March 11, 2009 at 11:17 am

I am always pleased to welcome folks to my side of the struggle. But I hope you spend some time clarifying your motivation.

Suppose you held that same lamp with genie and you were offered all the government goods and services and programs imagined by the Democrats at zero cost in terms of taxes. Would you take it? To wit, what is the proper role of government. And what is the proper size of a government that fulfills that role. Is “Big Government Conservatism” an oxymoron?

Next, Conservatism, at least to listen to guys like WFB, Russel Kirk, or Edmund Burke has a huge stake in traditional solutions to social problems. Traditional solutions were observed to work from time immemorial for reasons unknown and adopted. This alliance with tradition can be odious to participants in non-traditional life-styles. (Can you tolerate us Christers who’ll pray for your soul?) Clearly, tradition does not extend to sexism or racism as the social-cons’ love affair with Mrs. Palin and Mr. Jindal testifies.

It is a great folly to assume that just because a a politician is pro-life and speaks church-words (e.g. “sanctity of life”) that he is a Conservative. Church-words in the mouth of any politician are generally a tool of deceit. When the abortion question was posed to me as a civil-rights question I switched from pro-choice to pro-life. Is the fetus a human with rights to be secured by the state?

I’m not trying to talk you out of being a Conservative. If you compare government spending on households minus government taxation on households you see a huge problem with liberal/socialist tax policy. 60% of households are riding in the wagon and 40% of households are pulling the wagon (with 20% of households bearing the heaviest load). It’s tempting for the 60% to vote themselves more and more goodies taken from the pockets of the 20% (and hope that 20% never reads Atlas Shrugged). The term “economic justice” has been coopted by the left, but the shear unfairness of 40% getting screwed so that tax-cheats can buy the votes of 60% is economic injustice. It should make you mad. Or a Conservative.

Finally, if you don’t clearly know why you believe something, you’ll suck at convincing others to believe the same way. I think that Republicans (not conservatives) sought power by compromise with socialist-minded Democrats while sailing under false colors (Conservatism). To the contrary, Conservatives should have been articulating why we believe as we do, why it is a better way, and why it works. We failed to remind folks why Jimmy Carter’s way gave us Malaise and why Ronald Reagan’s way gave us Morning in America.


LadyPenelope March 11, 2009 at 11:51 am

Hi Cynthia,
I just wanted to say welcome to the party! I, like you, was a life long Democrat but about ten years ago started reading conservative books and became enlightened to the specific policies of each party. Needless to say I had a rude awakening about what each party stands for. I have come to realize that Liberals are just lazy thinkers in disguise. It is a default position. Once you start uncovering the layers it is impossible to go back. As the great John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” It is nice to see another person awakened by reason.
Take care,


Dave C March 16, 2009 at 8:02 pm


Nice to have you on board.


Stephanie March 26, 2009 at 10:44 pm

I agree with you on global warming- not man’s fault, and I’m not convinced we have enough data to even say there IS global warming. I also understand your comment here “I finally saw that there is a tipping point in the amount of taxes you have to pay to support the federal, state and local governments after which you have lost ability to support yourself and your family, to create and grow your business as an entrepreneur, and the right to use your own money for yourself and the causes YOU want supported, which often are causes that never would be supported by government.” But…what is that tipping point? Taxes were far higher midcentury (1950’s) on the top 5%, and yet entrepreneurship flourished- even if up to 90% of what they made was going to the state. I’ve not heard ANYTHING proposed that would go back to those marginal tax rates.


Cynthia Yockey March 27, 2009 at 7:40 am


I’d love to see your data on how entrepreneurship flourished in the 1950’s. I do not believe there are any. The 1950’s to the 1970’s were about Big Corporations, according to the metric I’m thinking about, which is based on the movies and books in popular culture. After all, “How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying” was about how to get ahead in a Big Corporation. However, the post-Reagan era had an explosion of entrepreneurship thanks to improved tax and trade policies. This brought us the computer and Internet era we have now — remember that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak started Apple Computer in a garage. This kind of explosion of genius, productivity and entrepreneurship is what Obama is killing now and in the future. It simply does not happen in the conditions he is creating.

Remember that the films of the 1930’s featured a leisure class of the idle rich, living off their inherited money. Where did they go? Well, thanks to the improved climate for business, even billionaires and their children work their asses off even though they can live off what they already have because productivity and creativity are fulfilling and in business you can measure your success in a satisfying way with money. These are the people providing the venture capital that creates businesses and jobs.



a.p. April 1, 2009 at 12:58 pm

hey- love the blog.

nyc conservative lesbian : )


bluesmama56 April 12, 2009 at 5:30 pm

thank you. i’m 52, lesbian, former quasi-liberal demwit, but now? after buying most of the bullshit dem manifesto for the last 30 years, i’m now a proud, palin-lovin’, newly registered republican (on my birthday – yeah, baby!!), AND a card-carrying member of the nra. and… essentially friendless and loveless in a sea of kool-aid drunk, mindless obamalovin’ lesbian and gay gun-hating, blamingeverythingthateverhappenedinthelasthundredyearsonbush, dems. so nice to see another middle-aged lez wake up.


Cynthia Yockey April 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm


I laughed out loud with joy reading your comment — actually, I’m still laughing as I write! So true! So true!

I feel I have a mission to free lesbians and gays from the paralyzing victim totalitarian groupthink that now dominates our community. We are individualists and entrepreneurs, which makes us the natural constituency of fiscal conservatism.



Hans Carlson April 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Dear Ms. Yockey,
Directed to your blog from Little Miss Attila, and read your entry regarding the imperative need for estate planning under the looming specter of nursing home costs, as a possible downside of marriage, whether gay or straight. Excellent, excellent point! I am a (nearly) 60-year old estate planning attorney. Regardless of orientation, marriage might not be the best option for middle-age or older folks who aren’t very well-t0-do. Don’t run to Iowa or Vermont and get married without seeing a lawyer. Totally lacks romance, I know, but you still gave GREAT advice. — Hans Carlson, Jackson, Minnesota


Cynthia Yockey April 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm


Thank you! It’s wonderful to have an expert validate that point!

I am planning to write more about this in the future to teach people what the issues are, how to educate themselves about the regulations and how to work with their doctors and lawyer to plan for their senior years and end-of-life care. Who knows? “Gay marriage” may become the popular name for the collection of legal documents lesbians and gays now have to use to approximate the rights of legal marriage. When very pious, religious couples have to divorce for financial reasons so that the community spouse (i.e., the one who doesn’t need long-term nursing home care) will be financially able to stay in his or her home and live independently, it breaks their hearts and shatters their sense of morality. If they can divorce and call their new legal arrangement a “gay marriage,” I wonder if that would feel a little bit better. After all, as lesbians and gays we are fighting for “marriage,” not “gay marriage.” If you ask your clients who are forced into this choice whether calling their new status a “gay marriage” would make them feel better — and help people understand instantly what they had to do — I hope you come back and comment and let me know.



bluesmama56 April 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm

thanks cynthia! i actually wrote to the log cabin repubs the other day begging them to do something fun locally so i can finally wear my newfound face amongst l/g friendlies. so far nothing, but i have lots and lots of hope. right now i just wear my sarah palin shirt to bed every night – makes me feel safe, and, well, that’s as close to socializing as i get these days. great blog!! keep up the excellent work.

my mom’s from jackson. hardly EVER hear of anyone from jackson. even minnesotans i’ve met scratch their heads and say, “hmmm… isn’t that way up north?… outside st. paul?… nope, never heard of it… i thought jackson was in iowa…” etc. anyway, i wrote a song about it for my mom, called, appropriately, “jackson” – i’m in the process of recording it now.


Cynthia Yockey April 13, 2009 at 3:12 pm


While you’re waiting for the Log Cabin group to get it together, try joining the local straight Republican club. You might find them friendlier than you think they would be.



Carol Cooper April 16, 2009 at 11:41 am

Hi Cynthia,
I discovered your blog while searching for Tea Party news. Thanks, for coming over to the Liberty — may I say Libertarian? — side.
Gracie’s loss is heartbreaking, and little anyone can say will help. I’ve said good-by to sweet, sweet pets, and I still remember the numbing sense of loss that followed. In time and after many tears, I realized that instead of missing them in my day-to-day world, I carried them inside me, in a place where pain and trouble could never hurt them, but where they are and will remain until I die. Until that time comes, when your tears give way to joyful remembering, here are some words that comforted me when I lost a very special cat, Baby. They came in a card from his veterinaran, and I am sure they are as true for Gracie as I hope they were for Baby.

Grieve not.
Nor speak of me with tears.
But laugh and talk of me
As if I were beside you there.
. . .
We cannot see beyond. . .
But this I know:
I loved you so. . .
’twas heaven here with you!

In Liberty,


teabag lady April 18, 2009 at 9:10 am

You have me absolutely in tears–remembering my old cat…I am so sorry for your loss.

(In an unrelated part of this post–how can I change my name? I didn’t know what the connotation of “teabag” meant–and I thought I was a woman of the world! *Groan….) Could you email me?

Thanks, and as a current owner of 3 cats that I rescued from under my porch–I am grieving with you.


MountainLaurel April 20, 2009 at 10:12 am

I am so glad I found your website. Being a conservative, sometimes skirt and dress wearing, gay woman it gets pretty lonely out here.


Laurie (Anis) Ring April 21, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Dear Cynthia-
I have had the honor of knowing Mr. & Mrs. D my whole life. My parents, George and Joan Anis, and the Dombrowski’s have been friends since my Dad and Mr. D shared an apartment before beginning their careers in education. My Father passed away several months before we lost Mr. D. My Mom and Esther continue to be best friends. I am writing you to see if you could help me gather historical info. on both Ray and Esther. She has many clippings of him, but I want to put together a ‘scapbook’ for Esther. She is having a very hard time with Ray’s loss plus her own conditions (as I write this, she is in the hospital). I know how to gather some of what I need, but if you have any insight into how I can put this info. together as quickly as possible, I would appreciate any help you can give me. I know it would do a lot to lift Mrs. D’s spirits and I fear my time is short.
Thank you Cynthia for all you have done to honor these wonderful people.
Laurie Ring


josil May 7, 2009 at 2:41 am

Welcome to the land of conservatism. It is a much bigger tent than the Left would like people to believe. Among the inhabitants are the Conservative Polygamists.


Cynthia Yockey May 7, 2009 at 11:44 am


I would like to know more about why you are calling out the “Conservative Polygamists.”

However, on that point, conservatives who point to the Bible regarding marriage do seem to me to be laying the foundation for the legalization of polygamy, which I oppose. They also don’t seem to be very worried about communities that claim to be Christian and manipulate and force girls and women into polygamous “marriages,” the main purpose of which is to feed the greed and lust for power of the sect’s leader or leaders by producing many followers quickly. And since rather a lot of men find having many women sexually available to them very pleasant, these start-up religions are an easy sell to the right target market — so polygamy also serves plain old lust. Polygamy played a key role in the rapid rise of the Mormon Church. Polygamy is a key part of the plan of Islamic clerics for world domination. Since polygamy really is about rapidly gaining power, this is the trend that threatens our country, not gay marriage.



Todd McLaren May 11, 2009 at 11:02 am

Cynthia dear:

“Conversions” like yours are the major reason I no longer am so careful to “hold my tongue” here in Hollywood when presented by many of the typical visceral reactions from collegaues.

It’s astounding the cognitive dissonance that results from holding many of their radical ideals up to the light. I love my friends–I just want them to think more carefully about their positions.

I look forward to frequent visits to your blog, and I’d like to add my warmest welcome to all of the others who have beaten me to the punch. I hope you’ve found that–far from the way we’re viciously portrayed by the other side–we’re actually a pretty warm, loving, accepting, and kinda cool crowd!

Sincere sympathies on losing such a major part of your life–Margaret seems like a joy. Everyone should have had such happiness.


Bruce May 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm


I want you to know that I really do appreciate your point of view as expressed in your blog. I along with a friend have successfully put forth the notion on our site that the premise put forth by the Democrats that they alone are the voice for gays and lesbians is utterly false. Appeasing the enemies of freedom and liberty is nothing short of a death sentence for gays. Case in point, Iran.

Keep up the good work. Your voice is indispensable to counter the far left and its pathetic pandering to designated groups of victims which they seek to exploit for their own power.


LesbianNeoCon June 1, 2009 at 6:45 am

Hello there! I’m a 43 years old recovering liberal! It is so refreshing to see PLM (people like me), who have woken up from their liberal-induced coma! I am not proud to say, I voted democrat until the 2000 election (for some reason, I just didn’t trust Gore). Looking back, I thank God that Bush was president when 9/11 happened. I fear we’d all be speaking Arabic by now – and I look horrible in a burka – had anyone on the Left been in charge!

Anyway, it’s nice to see you around and I will be visiting the blog daily!


Tara June 2, 2009 at 5:22 am

I would call myself a liberal/social democrat financially because I empathise a lot with the poor. I would then say that I am moderately conservative socially – I believe in science, I don’t believe in the right to abortion but I don’t believe in outlawing it altogether, I want sexual mores to return to 1950s levels but without gender inequality and homophobia. However in gay rights I believe in 100% equality, and I think that has everything to do with human rights and nothing to do with what else I believe.


Elizabeth Robbins June 12, 2009 at 11:48 pm

Welcome to our side,Cynthia….would love to be on your mailing list if you have one.


Cynthia Yockey June 12, 2009 at 11:52 pm


Thank you! For now, please follow me on Twitter, @conservativelez! I am going to tag my “fire Letterman!” posts as “#Letterman.”



Charles June 13, 2009 at 10:28 am


This is my first visit to your blog, (linked from Instapundit) and I am fascinated by what I’ve read; I expect I’ll be visiting frequently.

As one who rejected marxism/socialism in college because of it’s implied threat to liberty and more important, freedom of thought, I’m delighted to read you’ve escaped from the ‘tyranny of groupthink’ that is being waged by modern socalled liberals.

Welcome to the light!



Cynthia Yockey June 13, 2009 at 11:36 am


For the record, I never accepted Marxism or socialism. When I read the essays in a Marxist newspaper in Ann Arbor when I attended the University of Michigan in the 1970’s, I thought their polysyllabic nonsense meant nothing and could be interpreted to mean anything — it was the emperor’s new clothes, rhetoric-wise. Due to my father’s love of the works of Eric Hoffer, who wrote The True Believer, I read all of Hoffer’s books so I was immune to getting taken in.

Thank you for your kind praise — I’m glad you’ll be coming back.



Disco Prime June 14, 2009 at 8:29 am

Welcome to conservative life.

I was a leaning left person in my college days, and studied the whole AGW, back in the day we just called it Greenhouse Effects.


Rusty June 15, 2009 at 1:59 pm

I love to read and listen to folks who come at the same goal from different approaches. None of us have all the answers so if we respectively discuss the issues, we just might find common ground


Ad rem June 16, 2009 at 11:08 pm

Discovered your site this morning….I think it was linked at “The Other McCain”….sorry, too much surfing in one day…:-) I love everything about your site….your personal story, your style of writing, and probably most of all, your incredible determination. Boy does the Republican Party need a few thousand more people like you! I tried to send your “url” to my daughter…at her home address…..and my mail server,Verizon refused to send it! They kept bouncing it back as undeliverable??? Ah… so I tried sending it with random spacing….voila!…no problemo! Perhaps you have made some people in the corporate world squirm? Wonderful….power to the people!!!


Cynthia Yockey June 17, 2009 at 12:54 am

Ad rem,

Thank you for your encouragement and kind praise!



Ben June 17, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Quick question re gay marriage:

I’m a conservative christian, yadda yadda yadda… but this is America so I don’t think I should be able to define what other people can or can’t do if they want. Right?

My biggest concern, shared by many other people I know, is that if gay marriage is legalized our church would start getting sued by activists to force us to permit ceremonies on church grounds, etc.

While I’m for freedom for everyone that includes me as well… Are my fears unfounded? I’m hoping you can shed some light on this.

I love the blog, bookmarked it already.


Cynthia Yockey June 17, 2009 at 11:20 pm


We have separation of church and state. Churches are not public accommodations like restaurants. Public accommodations would not be allowed to discriminate. Churches can, due to the separation of church and state. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how there possibly could be grounds for a lawsuit requiring churches to permit gay wedding ceremonies on their grounds, unless they are accepting federal money. The National Organization for Marriage seems to be very busy spreading this lie, particularly in their “Gathering Storm” spot. The group in the spot that they said were forced to allow gay marriages, or gays, I’m too tired to check, was operating a public accommodation — a park that belonged to the state, and their contract required them not to discriminate. If they had owned the property, there would not have been a problem. The video answering NOM’s deceptions is in one of my early Carrie Prejean posts, if you want to check.

Thank you for your kind praise.



Ben June 17, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Thanks a ton for the info. I’ve caught some flack from people for supporting gay marriage and this is one of the biggest questions I see floating around that gives me pause.


Patrick June 18, 2009 at 3:19 am

Love you. Not sure I’m ready to embrace
the “conservative” label but I get your
point. So …





Patrick June 18, 2009 at 3:36 am

One more from Franz. Great lyrics too.



DJ June 20, 2009 at 1:20 am

Miss Cynthia,

I found your blog linked at http://www.girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/,
Welcome to conservatism!
I would like to add that the “gay marriage” thing is, in my opinion, being argued wrong. I think the correct argument is “Why is government involved in marriage at all?”

I enjoy debating people, I often debate on the topic of gay marriage, but never from the aspect of: if non-gays can marry, then its only fair that gays should be able to. I think those that support gay marriage would gain a lot more traction if the argument was framed for removing government from ANY marriage issue.


DaveinPhoenix June 23, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Hi Cynthia,
as a Libertarian leaning Conservative, the paradox in my younger years was of wanting to fight for Liberty for all except gay/lesbian people. In the past few years, I’ve come to know many lesbian women and to a person they were all marvelous people. The former paradox in my life is gone now. The fight for Liberty still remains – but it remains for all people. And after reading the truly sad story of your Blissful Gay marriage, it made me glad for you – glad that you had the opportunity to Love. You’ve been blessed and are a blessing as a person ! Keep writing… Yer awesome ! You brought joy to at least one woman in life …. and now an older Libertarian/Conservative guy. Keep Freedom Free for All !


Chris in Toronto June 24, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Hi, Cynthia: I read your wonderful story on PajamasMedia that ran beside the balancing story “Same-sex Miscarriage.” Very touching and thanks for sharing. I didn’t comment on your story, but I did comment on the other.

I’d like to say that the way you responded to Delia’s concern about commenting was a model of professionalism.

My question: is there any way I can drop you a line privately? I have some ideas I’d like to share but would prefer not to do it through the public comments. (I looked all over your site but found no email link… please forgive me if I missed it.)

One last thing: welcome to the right side!


ASM826 June 28, 2009 at 8:49 am

Here what I wrote a few weeks ago on my blog about some of the conservative topics I believe in. You’ll meet bigots everywhere, if you run into some, it won’t change the truth of what you’ve learned about fiscal conservatism and our core beleif in personal freedom.



Cynthia Yockey June 28, 2009 at 11:08 am


I read the post at the link — thank you for your support of equality for homosexuals. I have a suggestion about your comment section — change your comment settings to allow people to choose “name/URL.” Then they can create a name that will appear in public along with their URL. They also will give their e-mail, which will remain private. I see this option on many Blogger blogs.

The comment I wanted to leave has to do with choice and abortion. My perception is that the issue has become polarized because that’s how each extreme keeps money flowing in. I believe the only way for women to maintain their liberty and equality is for us always to have the legal option to terminate a pregnancy in the first 90 to 120 days. That is because the powerful and wealthy forces of religions and governments will always want to control a woman’s childbearing options and set up a world where women produce as many babies as possible to be converts, cannon fodder and cash cows (taxpayers). The option to kill the fetus is a woman’s only real weapon against these powers that want to appropriate her uterus for their own ends. Without it, we’re on the slippery slope back to being property — animals useful for sex, making babies and waiting on the men who own us — who can be discarded, beaten, mutilated or killed on a whim. This is not a distant threat — Islamic nations use women this way right now. Try reading the work on women and Islam by Phyllis Chesler at Pajamas Media, or Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.

However, we can organize our system so women do not have to face the choice of abortion through things like making sure women are educated, have the ability to pursue meaningful careers, can refuse sex, have access to birth control and so on.

By the way, my site is set up to be friendly to other bloggers and when bloggers comment on a post, I have a plug-in that automatically retrieves the link to their last post and shows its title with the link at the bottom of their comment. It didn’t do it for you here, however, so maybe it doesn’t work on my “About me” page.



- July 5, 2009 at 10:45 pm

ah, all you recent converts are about 30 years behind the bulk of the reagan boomers. I’ve always considered it hilarious that dems who go repug have willingly jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire… some people never kick the habit.


Ashley July 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm

Hi Cynthia,
As I was researching fiscal minded lesbians, your site popped up! I am a 30 yr. old social-minded democrat, fiscal-minded republican, and lesbian. I don’t know many gay and lesbians who think like I do and it’s frustrating. I have many straight friends who are democrats who ask me why I’m not a democrat and that I should be because of my sexuality. I take offense to that comment and it’s their own ignorance to think I would join a party because of my sexual preference. I tell them that has nothing to do with it, I support gay marriage (my thinking is that we pay taxes too therefore we should have the same rights), but I can’t vote with that only in mind. There are so many other issues to consider when voting: global warming, healthcare, taxes, etc. On certain issues, I side with conservatives. Anyway, nice to see there’s another lesbian who thinks like me!


Cynthia Yockey July 14, 2009 at 7:13 pm


It is likely that no one will do more damage to the cause of gay equality than Obama thanks to the recent brief Attorney General Eric Holder filed in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Obama’s refusal to keep his promises to repeal DOMA and DADT.

Thank you for your comment!



KimberlyEmilia July 16, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Hi Cynthia,
Saw you on the Sarah Palin site. I would like to say welcome to conservatism and also so sorry for your loss. We humans like the birds seem to mate for life. We can consider ourselves blessed to have loved one of those irreplaceables, but our song is never the same.



Barrister Pete July 23, 2009 at 5:00 pm

I only today stumbled upon your site and I think it’s great.

I read about your partner and I’m sorry for your loss.

I live in California and I have to admit I voted ‘yes’ on Prop 8. I’m more libertarian than conservative, so it may seem bizarre. But I simply couldn’t give the liberal’s another compromise so long as they absolutely refuse to give even a bone to conservatives. Yes, I realize there are some gays/lesbians who are conservative. But Prop 8 became a liberal bellwether. Liberals all but declared that success on this front would validate all other liberal policies. It was tough, but I had to stop that rationale from taking hold. Many of my libertarian friends agreed with me. I’m sorry it negatively impacts some of my gay/lesbian friends. I hope the issue comes back around and it is presented as a liberty and human rights issue instead of a ‘liberal win’.

I should say though, in my defense, I don’t see what business the state has in marriage anyway. What the heck? We need a ‘license’ for love? What’s next, a ‘love tax’?

I’m a fiscal conservative. I wouldn’t say I’m socially liberal so much as Constitutionally libertarian. My influences have been: Aquinas, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, etc. I’ve studied political philosophy for years and I come down on the side of liberty and natural law every time. I will not accept someone else’s quest for personal power repackaged as “the needs of the many outweigh the liberty of the individual”.

Whatever the case, I enjoy your site. Of all the conservative leaning sites I’ve seen, I’m most in line with your way of thinking. I am still a registered Democrat. But conservatives are no longer welcome in the party.

Eventually I hope to link to you on my site. But for now I can’t. I live in Hollywood and work in the industry. So while I’m a peon, I have to keep my opinions quiet lest I be blacklisted (yes, the ‘myths’ are true – blacklisting still exists).


gunner August 1, 2009 at 1:31 am

“lesbian(s)”? no problem, conservatives? welcome aboard from an old “right wing extremist” (that’s “a gun collector that voted for barry goldwater” back in the paleolithic age.) i got here from iowahawk, and i hope you won’t mind that i’ll be adding you to my favourite blogs folder. about “friendly republicans”, a good number of gay members of the “pink pistols” as well as some centrist straight democrats have found themselves welcome at gun clubs and shooting ranges for their espousal of the second amendment, to the disgruntelment of their more leftist friends who seem to think that they’re being seduced by the dark side. as a conservative pagan i’m not surprised, i get along quite well with my christian conservative friends.
best regards


The_Pilgrim November 20, 2009 at 7:14 am

“I am more than a little embarrassed that my liberal views were transformed into conservative ones by repeated encounters with facts and math.”

Best line. Ever.

I am a life long conservative, proud denizen of the Christian Right – and as such, I say: WELCOME! Glad to have you!


SFGoth December 10, 2009 at 12:42 am

As a registered Lib(ertarian) and a San Francisco real estate attorney, I find this blog, and Hillbuzz, fascinating. Frankly, I think LGF (or rather, Charles Johnson) has jumped the shark in the sense that he’s trying to hard to distance himself from the far right, he’s gone left, somewhat like Andrew Sullivan (but with less lift). But I digress. I have a considerable number of gay clients — you won’t make much $ in S.F. real estate (buy/sell or law) if you have a problem with pink money. Oh wait, it’s still green. You get my point. Totalitarianism doesn’t care what your sexual orientation is and I’m quite glad that that understanding is not orientation-specific. I’m sorry for your loss. You make a cute couple, particularly the younger pictures before MS took too much hold. Carry on!


Miriam December 17, 2009 at 5:52 am

This is supposed to be a link, but it isn’t working that way – I wanted to send this in an email, but there isn’t any email address listed on your site. Anyway, google this up and watch – this is what we conservatives have been saying – even the christian ones. If you can’t watch, it usually means they (PJTV) want you to create a free account and then log in.

PJTV – Trifecta – The Conservative Platform of Houston’s First Openly Gay Mayor

Here is the link – don’t know if it will work:



Don January 17, 2010 at 9:12 am

Since you are just beginning your conservative journey, I suggest you look at some of the works by Hayek, von Mises, and Milton Friedman.


Cynthia Yockey January 17, 2010 at 10:22 am


I ordered books by von Mises and Hayek this week so when I write about Gov. Sarah Palin I’ll be able to explain the scholarly foundation of her commonsense conservatism. What do you recommend by Milton Friedman?



Karen January 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm

Dear Cynthia,
I live in a suburb of Chicago and I am a fan of your website as as well as HillBuzz. I read your article about Kevin DuJan and need to contact him ASAP. If you know him could you please have him contact me at my email address? I have some information for him that could help him BIG TIME! I did not want to put the info in the actual message that I left on their website. I also sent another to hillbuzz@gmail.com but have not heard back yet from either message.

I appreciate any help you can give me in the matter.


Cynthia Yockey January 24, 2010 at 10:28 pm


I forwarded your message. They are receiving a lot of e-mail and comments this week, so give it a day or two and if you don’t hear back, comment at Hill Buzz and here again.

Thanks for helping Kevin and for being a fan!



Karen January 25, 2010 at 1:36 am


Thanks for your response. I did hear from Kevin tonight and have given him the info. I appreciate your help and am grateful for all you are doing to help him.



Grimmy January 29, 2010 at 9:08 am

Congrats, Cynthia! And nice to find you. Your dad’s work detailing the statistical impossibility of evolution was a part of my own journey.

Now you have one more conversion to consider. Try “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller. (I apologize in advance if you’ve already taken this path as well; if so, I didn’t notice it while reading on my tiny iPhone screen.)

All the best and welcome!


Cynthia Yockey January 29, 2010 at 10:54 am


My father’s work is NOT about the statistical impossibility of evolution! (New readers: My father is Hubert P. Yockey and I edit his work.) My father totally supports Darwin’s Theory of Evolution — in fact, on January 1, 2010, he pointed out that it is time to start calling it Darwin’s Laws of Evolution. Hubert P. Yockey’s work in information theory and molecular biology shows why the origin of life is unknowable by any method and therefore must be accepted as an axiom of biology, just as the origin of matter is accepted as an axiom of physics and chemistry. Darwin made exactly that point in his book, Origin of Species: the origin of life has to be accepted as the starting point for his Theory of Evolution.

Hubert P. Yockey’s work is about separating ALL faith from science. This includes religious faith, including all Creationist scenarios and their re-branded version, Intelligent Design, which is based on a misunderstanding and distortion of his work. It also includes all secular faiths, such as dialectical materialism. He refutes Intelligent Design by pointing out that the genome (the non-material information recorded digitally in DNA) does everything that IDers claim must be done by an Intelligent Designer. He also points out that the genome addresses the criticism of gaps in the fossil record, so this is now a completely obsolete and irrelevent objection to Darwin’s Laws of Evolution. That’s because there have been no gaps in the genome from the origin of life to the present AND because we are able to look back through the genome.

That said, I have no problem with anyone’s belief or faith in God and I personally believe in God. In fact, in higher states of enlightenment, which have both physiological and experiential correlates and are not associated with mastery of any particular intellectual concepts, people directly experience God. (Check out the Transcendental Meditation program, which is the most efficient and pleasant technology for attaining enlightenment. It is not a religion and does not conflict with any religion.)

However, I DO have a problem with dogmas and the fight over the origin of life and Darwin’s Laws of Evolution is a fight to use the money and apparatus of the state to impose religious dogmas through the public schools. Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious dogmas. It is a form of theft to try to get the state’s money to convert/deceive people into accepting those religious dogmas.

I do apologize for harshing your mellow since we’ve just met, but we ARE talking about my father’s life work. Everyone wins when it is properly understood. I do welcome you and hope that you will come back.



Nathan Cossey February 23, 2010 at 11:10 pm

You might like this Cynthia

Look closely for the parallel meaning.


Cynthia Yockey February 24, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Nathan Cossey,

Thanks for the link — I like the song, although I’m not sure what you mean by “parallel meaning.” But it reminds me of a point Mark Steyn made recently, which is that in 2009 when people in the rest of the world demonstrated over economic issues, they were pleading for their government to do something, and ONLY in the United States did people demonstrate to tell the government to get out of their way so they could fix their own problems.



Nathan Cossey February 24, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Cynthia Yockey February 24, 2010 at 7:47 pm


Thank you for the link. I don’t really feel like we are rejecting government control as much as we are refusing to allow the United States of America to be hi-jacked by Leftists and turned into a totalitarian state. But probably that’s the point you intended to make.



Nathan Cossey February 24, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Yes Totalitarian Left or Right. Though the Totalitarian right is a lot less likely to happen.


Nathan Cossey February 24, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Clarification: By totalitarian right I’m referring to Huckabee and his big government nanny-state ways.


Cynthia Yockey February 24, 2010 at 9:50 pm

Nathan Cossey,

I would define the totalitarian Right as the social conservatives who are working to get the tenets of their religions made into law so that the power of the government is available to force all to obey, as well as those who are working for their church to take over the government entirely. For example, the Catholic Church is so strong in Ireland that the government has outlawed birth control.



There are quite a lot of social conservatives who are simply extremely idealistic people, whose situation is comparable to similarly idealistic people on the Left — both are unaware that they are like the hardworking animals in the barn in George Orwell’s book, Animal Farm, who will never be as equal as the animals who live in the house and govern them. In both cases, I honor their idealism and nobility of intention.


Lagniappe's Guy March 20, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Welcome to the party!

And I mean the Conservative Party, not necessarily the Republican one.


Cynthia Yockey March 21, 2010 at 12:33 pm

Lagniappe’s Guy,

Thank you! Obama announced after he was elected that he would drive moderate Democrats out of the party — not that you would know this if you only read the mainstream media or Leftie blogs. I didn’t want to register as “Independent” because they strike me as being vulnerable to every con artist who tells them what they want to hear. I believe in being FOR something. So I registered as a Republican in December 2008.



Bobby Mason March 23, 2010 at 8:51 am

You have a cool site! Al Sharpton is a jerk!!


Cynthia Yockey March 23, 2010 at 11:56 am

Bobby Mason,

Thank you! New gentle readers: Bobby is referring to my post of the video of Al Sharpton right after the passage of Obamacare on 3/21/2010 gloating to Geraldo Rivera on Fox News that Obamacare is indeed socialism and that everyone who voted for Obama voted for him so he could transform America to socialism. This is a 180 degree turn for Sharpton, et al., otherwise known a lie. The fact that this admission did not overshadow the passage of the bill really epitomizes the corruption of our mainstream media.



Cheryl Boglarsky March 29, 2010 at 1:54 pm

You’re talking with the Steyn!!!!


Cynthia Yockey March 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Cheryl Boglarsky,




The Rude Dog March 29, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Cyntiha! We heard you on Rush w/Mark Steyn today and you were great.

We evil right wing viking capitalist cave men love having everybody in the movement.

Keep fighting the good fight!


Kristopher March 29, 2010 at 2:04 pm

I caught you on with Mark, great job. I have a friend that will be thrilled to see someone who has so much in common with her thinking writing so much!


Stuart March 29, 2010 at 5:22 pm

I (like just about everyone it seems) heard you on Rush’s show today. I have been exploring lately the hypothesis that the majority of people are actually fiscally conservative but have many socially “liberal” views, and are turned off by the ‘grumpy old man’ stereotypical conservative. It is so great to find someone like you who doesn’t have a psychopathic fit when someone mentions tax cuts and less government! I also found some of your arguments about gay marriage (to which i have hitherto been rather opposed on the slippery slope/what-happens-when-someone-wants-to-marry-their-cat basis) to be food for much thought. If you ever get a break from answering posts from Rush listeners, please email me, as I am a fellow Marylander (for now)


Ron Pittenger April 9, 2010 at 7:55 pm

I notice you mention a “more-than-passing interest” in climate change (aka global warming). Since I am a heretic* on this subject, I’d like to recommend a site where all sides are welcome and some truth actually does get revealed. Started by Anthony Watts, it has been identified as one of the top 25 sites in the world for info on this subject by the (London) Times On-line:
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com. Daily visits are about 10,000.

*According to the warmists, a heretic is slightly worse than a sceptic (a sceptic might be hanged; a heretic would be hung, then the corpse would be drawn and quartered). We think the globe may, in fact be warming. We even think it is possible humans are contributing to this (but don’t think anyone has any real idea to what degree). We further think the existing science is mostly bat pucky, so corrupted with errors (both incidental and purposeful) as to be worthless, and think it needs to be repeated with honest instruments and disinterested observers recording the findings. And, personally, I’m not so sure that being two or three degrees warmer would be all that bad a thing. But, then I’ve been freezing in New England for 41 years in May, and anything warm sounds good to me. I just can’t believe the guy who can’t tell me the weather tomorrow without having to give me a percentage of times he expects to be right can hope to know the temperature 30, 50, or 100 years from now with any assurance. What are we supposed to do if he’s wrong? Go urinate on his headstone? And, for this, we should destroy our economy and pay reparations to 3rd world countries? As Dorothy said, it’s a humbug.

I don’t care whether or not you post this, I just wanted to let you now about the site.
Ron Pittenger


Cynthia Yockey April 9, 2010 at 8:24 pm

Ron Pittenger,

Thanks for the link — I think I tried to put Wattsupwiththat in my newsfeed and Anthony’s RSS settings broke it, so I had to take it out. People on the Left do not understand how much they information in their newspapers and blogs is used to control what they believe and how they behave in order to take their power, usually in the form of causes that are destructive to capitalism — this includes news stories on the science that disproves anthropomorphic global warming (AGM).

Once I started reading Right wing blogs, I was stunned at how many more points of view I found they were willing to consider than the Left does. I was an engaged person, and still got caught in the Left’s echo chamber. The science does not support theories of anthropogenic global warming, while the hacking of the e-mails of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University — the HQ of global warming — in Nov. 2009 show that data were manipulated to support the desired conclusion and the careers of scientists whose work demonstrated that the AGM theory has no merit were deliberately thwarted and tanked. I wonder why the New York Times published hardly a peep about this. However, Anthony Watts does a great job covering it at Wattsupwiththat.



Ron Pittenger April 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm

Glad to know you are aware of WUWT. Not to carry on a long distance conversation, but several of the UK newpapers (both print and online versions) are giving the climategate (whistleblower) emails some real attention. A Parlimentary subcommittee gave the issue a half-hearted inquiry that included testimony from not one single sceptical scientist, and pretty much blew the whole thing off. Worse, the Royal Commission looking specifically at the science–to be sure it isn’t completely bogus, you know–is to be chaired by Lord Oxbrough (I probably spelled the poor guy’s name wrong), who has a financial interest in several companies that will only make money if AGW is found to be “real.” I’ve been following this at WUWT for quite some time (I’ve got about 115 saved articles, op-eds, and emails). Can’t wait to see the surprise ending when the “disinterested” Commission says “Of course there’s nothing wrong with the science, old chap!”


Cynthia Yockey April 9, 2010 at 9:44 pm

Ron Pittenger,

So — a whitewash commission, eh? So the U.K. newspapers have taken the discovery of the fraud and manipulation to heart, but the people with money in the game have knobbled the inquiries (to use the British expression) in Parliament. I hope they’ve underestimated their press and the wrath of a people who find out they’ve been played.



Kae Gregory April 15, 2010 at 6:28 pm

You probably thought you were going to be eaten.



Cynthia Yockey April 15, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Kae Gregory,

You mean for attending the Bel Air, Maryland, Tax Day Tea Party protest? Nah! Conservatives respect people as individuals!



Laura May 17, 2010 at 10:37 pm

You rock! Wish we had about 100 more of you here in Los Angeles! What a great site to visit. Keep fighting the good fight!


Karen May 26, 2010 at 7:33 pm

I am impressed with anyone who is transformed by good ol’ fashioned research. Once someone is open minded enough to read up on the conservative take on issues, they are transformed, as you said, by “facts and math”, not empty promises. Welcome, Cynthia! πŸ˜‰


Cynthia Yockey May 27, 2010 at 2:13 pm


I was shocked to find out how much the facts about fiscal conservatism were disappeared from the marketplaces of ideas managed by liberals/Leftists and that only “conservative” critics of other conservatives, or conservatives like George Will who were so snide they could almost anyone off of conservativism, were allowed into the discussion. But the reason the Left rigorously controls what its adherents know is that, as the economist Friedrich Hayek explained, they are unwittingly on the road to serfdom and would bale toot sweet if they got a REALLY good look at the map their leaders are keeping from them.



Amir September 7, 2010 at 9:42 pm

Hi Cynthia,
I am looking for Hubert Yockey and cannot find his contact info on the net. I was wondering if you could help me.
Thank you,


Ruffslitch November 27, 2010 at 6:34 pm

Stumbled across your blog and love it! My sister plays the bassoon, too! She used to live in Gaithersburg; she and hubby played at the Harlequin Dinner Theatre years ago. They have since moved back to Atlanta and both teach music and play in the Cobb Wind Symphony. I am happy to see former liberals joining the fold of fiscal conservatism. Most of us vanilla straights don’t care who sleeps with whom as long as we don’t have to pay for it. LOL!


Cynthia Yockey May 27, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Mary Beth,

Thank you for your kind praise and thoughtful comment. It helps me to learn how others see things.

Actually, social conservatives are busy on every aspect of denying equality to lesbians and gays — not just marriage equality, but also in employment, housing (both renting and buying as a couple), enjoying public accommodations (such as stores and restaurants) and by blocking positive representations of us in television and film.

Social conservatives in Virginia have been particularly successful and reveal that their activities to oppose marriage equality are in every way a nationwide movement by a coalition of religions to deny equality to homosexuals and use the apparatus of government to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone.

Here are some articles that will explain — please do read them because Mr. Rauch explains why the right to make contracts was considered by the Founders to be a fundamental element of personhood:

The Washington Post, Jonathan Rauch, “Virginia’s New Jim Crow,” June 13, 2004: “In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals’ right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there. ‘Sorry,’ the hospital might have to say to her frantic partner, ‘your contract means nothing here. Now leave before we call security.'”

From the blog, Obsidian Wings, “Rauch on Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act,” June 14, 2004: “But even if the law is not interpreted to deny Virginia’s gay couples the right to contracts such as power of attorney and medical directive (and clearly the only ones who will benefit as that’s sorted out are lawyers), it is quite successfully designating gays as second-class citizens.”

The Washington Blade, Feb. 11, 2005, “Virginia poised to become ‘most anti-gay state,'” “The anti-gay bills this year have taken on a particularly nasty tone, especially after last year’s Assembly passed the Marriage Affirmation Act, a measure that not only bans gay unions, but outlaws legal agreements between residents of the same sex that resemble marriage rights.”

(Jonathan Rauch is author of the book, Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, Good for America.)

Recently two lesbians who had durable medical powers-of-attorney AND produced them were denied access to their dying life partners. For more on that, see this piece by ABC News and this story by the New York Times. So these legal contracts, which do not have to be recognized throughout the U.S., are no substitute for the rights that come with marriage.

BTW, I always had to have multiple copies of my durable medical power-of-attorney for my life partner when she was hospitalized (she had multiple sclerosis and was paralyzed). I learned to carry several copies for the claims that the one I’d gotten put in her record in the ER had somehow been “lost” when she was admitted. When my mother was dying, my father only had to say he was her husband to be allowed to take over her care. No one asked for a marriage license.

The history of marriage shows that it is in a constant state of being re-defined. You really ought to do some more research. The traditional marriage of the Old Testament was polygamy — a man had as many wives as he could afford. Solomon not only had hundreds of wives but ALSO hundreds of concubines. Also traditionally, and within my own lifetime, women have been considered legally the property of their husbands. In many places around the world, women still are property. The idea of equality for women is really still brand new and is having quite the dramatic effect on changing the concept of marriage in the U.S. and around the world.

The fight for marriage equality is indeed a fight for equality. We are only fighting for the right to have the spouse of our choice and to have the legal rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have with their own chosen spouse. Religions certainly should not be restricted from banning same-sex couples from marrying within a particular religion. Instead of fighting to take the word “marriage” away from us, they should be branding the marriages they perform: Catholic marriage, Mormon marriage, Black Liberation Theology marriage, Evangelical marriage, and so on. We’ll be happy with having just plain “marriage” and being married by judges, justices-of-the-peace, ministers of the Metropolitan Community Church, Internet-certified ministers — as long as they have the legal authority, we won’t be fussy.

I’ll be happy to follow you on Twitter, where you may also follow me as @aconservativelez.

Thank you for your comment!



Cancel reply

Leave a Comment

{ 8 trackbacks }