Gay Patriot Header Image

Conservative Confab Won’t Give In to Pressure to Exclude GOProud

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:54 pm - January 14, 2010.
Filed under: Conservative Ideas,GOProud

It’s too bad Wayne Besen’s colleague can’t let go of his distaste for gay conservatives long enough to realize the significance of the news Wayne linked on his facebook page and that colleague reported on his website:

Liberty University Law School has withdrawn as a co-sponsor of next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington because a Republican homosexual activist group is being allowed to co-sponsor the event.

That “homosexual” activist group is our friends at GOProud.  While the colleague uses the occasion to slam gay conservatives, we have an (yet another) example of the increasing tolerance conservatives are showing for gay people.  Ridden out on a rail we are not.

Kudos to CPAC for standing up to pressure from a social conservative group seeking to keep gays out of the conservative movement.  And kudos to GOProud for reaching out to the conservative movement.  Their efforts help break down prejudices against people like us, promoting a broad-based conservative movement, based on the ideas of Ronald Reagan rather than the prejudices of Pat Robertson.

Gay activists should welcome this news; it shows that Americans of all stripes are becoming increasingly tolerant and accepting of gay people.  And shouldn’t their goal be an America were gay people are welcome in all endeavors?  But, it seems that trashing conservatives has become such a part of the modus operandi of some gay leftists that even as the facts change, their prejudices do not.

So, let’s sum up, this is great news, particularly for broad-minded conservatives; a leading conservative organization, perhaps the leading conservative group, would rather lose the sponsorship of a prominent social conservative institution than exclude a fledging gay conservative organization.

Share

33 Comments

  1. Kudos for CPAC, sending an e-mail when I get home.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 14, 2010 @ 1:56 pm - January 14, 2010

  2. When some members of CPAC want to ban homosexuals, what they are seeing in their minds, whether we like it or not, are the Pride parades and rallies and rock-throwing at churches. They are seeing Adam Lambert and Elton John. They are seeing Stonewall. They are not seeing that there is any other way to be gay. They are not seeing Lutherans in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships because they don’t know any exist.

    Our enemies are not Liberty University Law School and their ilk–our enemies are those gays who persist on fulfilling stereotypes so we have no access to anything that doesn’t fit in with their agenda.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 14, 2010 @ 2:07 pm - January 14, 2010

  3. You know what really pisses me off about these people excluding gays on “moral” grounds??

    How many addicts, adulterers, tax-cheats, etc do you think they have among their members?? I bet plenty!

    Glass houses, good grief, glass houses.

    Comment by MissTammy — January 14, 2010 @ 2:18 pm - January 14, 2010

  4. Well maybe Ashpenaz they should open their minds a little bit, or else they shouldn’t complain that liberal voters view them all to be bigoted and hateful. It doesn’t excuse their behavior, just like it doesn’t excuse the gay activists who see all Christians as anti-gay crusaders.

    If you’re only experience with the gay community is what you see on tv from coverage of a gay pride parade, maybe you need to branch out a little more before you make a decision. Or else its alright for the rest of us to just watch Pat Robertson’s tirades and judge all Christians on that.

    Good for CPAC though.

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — January 14, 2010 @ 3:02 pm - January 14, 2010

  5. MissTammy, well I bet their counter-argument would be that addicts, adulterers, etc. don’t form interest groups, expecting to have their sin accepted. But, I’m not here to defend them. Homosexuality, as a general thing apart from such immoral circumstances as rape, adultery, etc., is no more a sin than heterosexuality.

    a leading conservative organization, perhaps the leading conservative group, would rather lose the sponsorship of a prominent social conservative institution than exclude a fledging gay conservative organization.

    While a comparable leftist organization would certainly exclude the gay conservative group – because not many committed leftists can stand ideological diversity.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - January 14, 2010

  6. I suspect that a group of gay Christians in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships, and who believe that sex is only appropriate within that kind of relationship, and that sex outside of a lifelong covenant is wrong, would be excluded from most Pride parades. In fact, Christian gays who believe that sex is only appropriate within a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship are frequently attacked on this site. Watch the posts that follow this one for evidence.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 14, 2010 @ 5:45 pm - January 14, 2010

  7. Disequilibrium is a predictable outcome of diversity: people with different world views and styles of being in the world keep challenging each other’s assumptions. New learning is one outcome of disequilibrium; resentment and conflict are others. . . J Gonzales-Mena

    I applaud GoPROUD for joining CPAC and for those protesting CPAC’s decision to allow a place at the table, under the BIG tent, . . . well, I guess everyone has a right to pack up their toys and huff off in haste.

    Bringing LGBT issues to the table at CPAC is wonderful step in bringing awareness and new energy.

    Comment by rusty — January 14, 2010 @ 5:49 pm - January 14, 2010

  8. What Gay issues will you be bringing up at CPAC?

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — January 14, 2010 @ 6:34 pm - January 14, 2010

  9. I just looked this up: Liberty University is a Falwell outfit. For a moment, I thought it might be Robertson, which would have tied it in neatly with Robertson’s other recent activities. Oh, well.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2010 @ 6:35 pm - January 14, 2010

  10. What Gay issues will you be bringing up at CPAC?

    Without speaking for GOProud, I would expect them to bring up what their website talks about: “limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy.” All of which, yes, are very much gay issues. (Issues helpful or important to gay and lesbian people.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - January 14, 2010

  11. I expect them to bring up gay pro-life issues, such as the protections of gays from conception until natural death since the abortion of possibly gay children is a serious issue, as well as the care of the gay elderly. For me, being gay and being pro-life go hand-in-hand.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — January 14, 2010 @ 8:42 pm - January 14, 2010

  12. When you say “individual liberty” does that mean the GOP is ready to help me get married in all 50 states? No

    CPAC will get something out if this, the GOP is not ready to let us sit at the table.
    I believe in spending less, small government but im not willing to put my happiness in the hands of the GOP. Do i wish the Dems would spend less, HELL YES. Do I wish they’d help small business HELL YES. But for me I will continue to vote for social issues’s rather then fiscal issues.

    I’m a left leaning independent. My problem isn’t with gay republicans being “conservative”, hell i dated one (for a SHORT time). Its the way we approach things. By the way I Love Wayne, he’s a good guy.

    I’ve only met on gay person in my life who didn’t believe in marriage. His feeling was that gay people can’t be faithful, i think some people on this site also feel that way. For me thats not true. All the gay republicans I’ve met (all but that one) believed in equal rights and treatment. We just have a different believe on how to get there. I’m thankful I live in the GREAT state of CT. I can’t be fired for being gay and I can get married (thank you mister court). Most states can fire you simply for loving someone. I think we need to work on that and DADT. If gay republicans will help change minds GREAT. We’ll need it.

    I’ve never met anyone who didn’t like me because of a gay pride event, if they did Screw them. If the GOP is going to hold pride events and protest over our heads, fine. There’s plenty to be held over them. Both sides need to cool it. Not just the liberal gay community.

    You may be right, this could be a Great new beginning for the relationship, i just don’t have much faith in it.

    Comment by George Malone — January 14, 2010 @ 9:00 pm - January 14, 2010

  13. I left a little note for Besen’s colleague, Evan Hurst:

    Hey, Evan,

    Just because you think socialized medicine is fine-and-dandy and enjoy presuming upon the safety of the country doesn’t mean that GOProud has to.

    If they’re conservatives why shouldn’t they participate in CPAC or any other conservative event?

    You’re a typical leftist, Evan: You scream about compassion (the absurd comment about health care being white) but reveal yourself as bitter and selfish (why don’t gay Republicans focus on being gay rather than on being Americans) at the most minute provocation. Loser.

    I do hope he enjoys it. ;)

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 14, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - January 14, 2010

  14. George Malone @ 12:

    When you say “individual liberty” does that mean the GOP is ready to help me get married in all 50 states?

    Somehow, I don’t think helping people get something from the government is what conservatives mean when they think of individual liberty.

    I believe in spending less, small government but im not willing to put my happiness in the hands of the GOP. Do i wish the Dems would spend less, HELL YES. Do I wish they’d help small business HELL YES. But for me I will continue to vote for social issues’s rather then fiscal issues.

    TRANSLATION: I will continue to place my selfish concerns above the interests of the country. I will continue to place my self-identification as a homosexual above any sense of duty as a citizen.

    This is the typical attitude of those who focus on “social issues” rather than on matters of basic justice or national well-being. It’s always about making themselves feel better about themselves.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 14, 2010 @ 11:58 pm - January 14, 2010

  15. “Most states can fire you simply for loving someone.” False.
    Constitutes sexual harassment, a violation of Title VII. Even though Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Oil Services was implemented due to the repeated sexual assault of a social conservative by LGBT individuals in the private sector, you cannot be dismissed based on your private sexual behavior. These falsehoods, like “born that way”, need to stop being perpetuated by the LGBT community.

    Comment by RJLigier — January 15, 2010 @ 12:35 am - January 15, 2010

  16. I am a straight small, “l” libertarian, more Goldwater than Bush. Working in LA, I have gay friends and colleagues, and a few are actually conservatives and small “l” libertarians. The thing I can’t reconcile is why people coalesce around group politics rather than individual freedoms. Certainly gay and straight people have a broad diversity of political bent and no political party is going to catch every group (close in some cases).
    So my exit question is this. Why can’t we all coalesce around individual liberty as the ideal instead of Gay this, Jewish that, Black this, Catholic that. Wouldn’t a huge block of people who value individual liberty be more politically influential than smaller bantustans of ethnic and gender minorities, who can be split and fractured by the political parties?

    Comment by LA Conservative — January 15, 2010 @ 12:50 am - January 15, 2010

  17. Most states can fire you simply for loving someone. I think we need to work on that

    Work on what? Even more power turned over to the State to run businesses?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 15, 2010 @ 1:38 am - January 15, 2010

  18. UPDATE: I think Evan did enjoy it! He replied:

    Did I miss something? Did a socialized medicine bill pass?

    Did I miss something? Did George W. Bush defeat al Qaeda?

    Catch me up!

    OH, but to answer your question more fully, as to why they shouldn’t participate, go to the front page of the blog.

    Not great responses, I know. But I did grant him a reply:

    Did you miss something, Evan? Apparently yes. You missed out on a brain.

    Both House and Senate have passed bills giving the government immense and unconstitutional power in health care.

    And as for Al Qaeda, Bush’s defeating or not defeating them is irrelevant for this discussion, but he did a better job fighting them than his successor has done so far. As the whole world knows.

    You really have a fat lot of nerve raising questions about Bush’s record against Al Qaeda after making fun of people for being alarmed by yet another attempt to destroy an airliner. Perhaps if lefties like you could learn to take matters like national security seriously, your constant whining about how the state won’t validate your identity would be easier to take. Perhaps.

    I looked at your blessed home page. There is nothing there that answers my question. So I take it you have no answer other than your reflexive dislike for all things non-leftist.

    Poor Evan. He really a loon. But when a guy considers mainstream conservative/anti-leftist types like the GOProud crew to be “wingnuts,” well, he really is too far gone to help, isn’t he? (Some sort of special hospital really needs to be built for these sorts…)

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 15, 2010 @ 1:40 am - January 15, 2010

  19. Most states can fire you simply for loving someone.

    Perhaps because you’re doing it on the job?

    Comment by American Elephant — January 15, 2010 @ 6:08 am - January 15, 2010

  20. In many states you can be fired for being gay. It’s not a false statement, in some states I don’t have to hire you because you’re gay and Yes you can also be fired. Thats what I want to work on that, Why can’t I fire someone for being Catholic?

    21 states where you cannot be fired for being gay: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin

    RJLigier, you don’t think people are born gay? more power to you. Here’s a quote for ya, you arrogant fuck. Tell me where I got it

    “I nearly didn’t post on this because I think the article is a cheap shot at religious organizations. The fact of the matter is, unless your company has specific policies against discrimination due to sexual orientation, or you live in a state with a non-discrimination law, you can be legally fired for being gay at any company — religious or not. They might not tell you it is for being gay, but it can be done.”

    WOW Classical Liberal Dave, harsh I had to clean the bit on that one. Selfish OK, now tell me what else to feel

    Perhaps because you’re doing it on the job? LOL, if thats your thing do it man

    “Somehow, I don’t think helping people get something from the government is what conservatives mean when they think of individual liberty.” Well I want the federal benifits of marriage, who else do I get them from?

    Look I didn’t come on here to fight with “gay arm of the GOP”, it looks like opinions from those not in the club house are not welcome here. Funny

    Comment by George Malone — January 15, 2010 @ 5:26 pm - January 15, 2010

  21. instead of jumping my shit, Please explain to me What it means to be a conservative? Explain, if it does, how marriage fits in to that. Is it wrong to want a marriage? How do we live next to, work with and love people who think less of us because we’re gay? At what point do I begin to infringe on their rights and them on mine. I’m being real, I want to know.

    Comment by George Malone — January 16, 2010 @ 12:10 am - January 16, 2010

  22. George,

    You think that was harsh? HAH! That was the kid-glove treatment. You’d have to do more than “clean the bit” if I’d really been harsh with you. (Oh, and the “doing it on the job” crack was from American Elephant, not me. Get your detractors straight, my man.)

    I am not any arm of the GOP, gay, straight, or indifferent. What I said about conservatives and liberty was simply a statement of reality. For conservatives liberty is the ability to act without interference, not gaining the help to act from someone else. Your view of “individual liberty” derives (as is always the case with those on the left) from the French Revolution and the likes of Marx and Engels. For those who believe in the American Revolution, liberty and gaining government benefits have nothing to do with one another.

    And you can want all the legal benefits (federal or otherwise) of civil marriage all you want. I don’t care one way or the other. However, your personal desires for yourself shouldn’t be the basis of your voting habits.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 16, 2010 @ 1:43 am - January 16, 2010

  23. instead of jumping my shit, Please explain to me What it means to be a conservative? Explain, if it does, how marriage fits in to that. Is it wrong to want a marriage? How do we live next to, work with and love people who think less of us because we’re gay? At what point do I begin to infringe on their rights and them on mine. I’m being real, I want to know.

    OK, George, I’ll do my best to enlighten you. You don’t make the task easy for your focus is basically anti-conservative:

    How do we live next to, work with and love people who think less of us because we’re gay?

    Conservative political thinking is not based on obsessing over one’s individual traits. That’s an obsession of the cultural left. Conservatism is interested in matters of political principle — what constitutes proper governance. One’s race, creed, or sexuality don’t alter the principle of proper governance any more than one’s taste in foods does. (Please note this is quite different from being focused on social issues from either a left or right-wing point of view.)

    I’ve never stated in this forum what my sexual orientation is, or whether I’m in a relationship or not, or whether I’m sexual active or not. No more than I’ve said what my ethnicity or religion or height and weight are. And none of the regulars cares.

    Now for the marriage issue, which seems to be your main concern.

    Is it wrong to want a marriage? No. Of course if the marriage in question is between two people of the same sex, the question is begged if such a relationship can fulfill what is meant by a marriage. The answer to such a question depends entirely on what one thinks marriage is about.

    As a cultural matter, marriage has served as symbol of the ultimate unity of the two different sexes. If this is a sine qua non of marriage for the one asking the question, then of course “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.

    Most arguments about marriage focus on it as a social institution. For those who see its basic function as providing the proper form for procreation and childrearing, same-sex marriage is silly, superfluous, and possibly dangerous. For those who view marriage’s basic import as encouraging sexual fidelity over promiscuity or as simply a means of promoting the happiness of couples, same-sex marriage is simply logical.

    As far as political conservatism is concerned, none of this matters a bit. Yes, George, that’s right. You can take any of these views — or none of them — and still be a political conservative. Conservatism started with concerns about socialism replacing the classical liberal principles on which the country was founded. Marriage is an entirely periferal issue.

    And the enactment of any of these views of marriage in the civil law cannot impinge on anyone’s rights. Civil marriage isn’t a right. The government could abolish it and no one’s rights would be infringed in the slightest. Note again here, George: Government benefits do not equal rights. If you think they do, you’re not a conservative.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 16, 2010 @ 3:26 am - January 16, 2010

  24. Classical Liberal Dave,

    Kudos. I am certain you realize that for many on the left, “conservative” means protecting the status quo first and being reasoned last. Conservatives, they claim, want to turn the clock back to the bad old days when the “have’s” got their jollies beating up on the “have nots.”

    Gay marriage is the upending of the status quo. That is why, when gay marriage is discussed as a political issue, the actual discussion is the purpose and meaning of marriage as a compelling state interest. It is not so much a matter of whether gay marriage is an idea that needs to be addressed as it is whether the state any longer cares to promote or protect the marriage tradition.

    I find it enormously hypocritical to favor opening marriage to same sex couples and opposing plural marriage at the same time. That argument demands that there is a compelling state interest for the one and not the other. And, to be really obnoxious, if a woman wishes to marry her rooster rather than broil him for Sunday supper, what is the compelling state interest in denying something she really wants?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 16, 2010 @ 2:11 pm - January 16, 2010

  25. I find it enormously hypocritical to favor opening marriage to same sex couples and opposing plural marriage at the same time.

    Heliotrope, I could almost understand the slippery slope argument, that same sex marriage will lead to the re-emergence of polygamy. But why hypocrisy?

    The reason why I don’t see the hypocrisy is that, I don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality in and of itself, and that homosexuals should be encouraged to enter monogamous relationships, the same as we do for heterosexuals. On the other hand, I don’t believe that polyamorous relationships should be encouraged. As such, I support same sex marriage, but oppose polygamy.

    Comment by Pat — January 16, 2010 @ 3:00 pm - January 16, 2010

  26. Pat,

    You favor changing the definition of marriage. You want to change it to accept your particular desire. Fine. Now you must demonstrate that your change is beneficial to society and should be part of the formula in determining the compelling state interest to change the marriage definition.

    This is pure conjecture, but I image that there is a greater population wanting plural marriage than there is wanting gay marriage. (I am thinking Islam here and other cultural traditions.)

    Now let us image that Islamic people are pushing for plural marriage and they oppose gay marriage because they have no earthly appreciation of being gay. Suppose the state looked at that formula and decided that Sharia and radical Islam talks much louder than gay militancy. I am not talking about ethics here, I am suggesting the raw politics of threats and violence.

    So, I hear you wonder, would I feel differently about plural marriage? No.

    I think we need to have a clear set of reasons as to why we should change the marriage tradition and those reasons had best include clear reasons why the one change does not open the door for other changes.

    By the way, there are “foreigners” living here and maintaining plural marriages. The state has decided not to aggravate them. They come to the surface when they try to get welfare for the whole marriage ensemble or papa beats up one of the wives. On the other hand, we are pretty quick to drag Mormon fundamentalists into the limelight if they engage in plural marriages. Typically, the state knows it can stomp on Mormon fundamentalists with impunity, but when it comes to the other cultures, it prefers to let sleeping dogs lie.

    Gays can find some convenient bishop of gay marriage, get hitched without any state recognition and wear rings and talk of spouses and call themselves married and commit themselves to one another. No one will stop them, arrest them or try to separate them. Am I wrong?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 16, 2010 @ 3:25 pm - January 16, 2010

  27. [...] The CPAC contretemps over the inclusion of GOProud represents, in many ways, a major milestone in the history of the gay right, indeed is illustrative of the state of mainstream conservatives today.  A conservative organization seeks to include both social conservatives and gay conservatives.  The extreme social conservatives raise a ruckus.  And the conservative organization which won’t yield to their request to exclude the gay group. [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Are gay Groups Really Indifferent to Increasing Acceptance of Gay Conservatives by the American Right? — January 16, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - January 16, 2010

  28. I am certain you realize that for many on the left, “conservative” means protecting the status quo first and being reasoned last.

    Yes, indeed, heliotrope. But then they fail to distinguish between the philosophically conservative and the reflexively conservative. This is unsurprising; most leftists adopt their political thinking for emotional reasons and assume everyone else does the same.

    As for same-sex marriage and plural marriage, that involves a question I didn’t address with Mr. Malone: the centrality of couplehood (being a couple) to marriage.

    People who want to alter marriage have to justify why certain alterations are good and others bad.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 16, 2010 @ 8:58 pm - January 16, 2010

  29. Classical Liberal Dave
    Thank you for answering my questions, I think I have a better understanding. Sorry about the sex a work thing. Just for the record, my biggest concern is not marriage, CT had civil unions for years before marriage and it worked. For me It’s DADT, my boyfriend is in the military and it scares the hell out of me. No being in the military, its made him a Great man but being discharged.

    Can I ask you to explain something more? “And the enactment of any of these views of marriage in the civil law cannot impinge on anyone’s rights. Civil marriage isn’t a right. The government could abolish it and no one’s rights would be infringed in the slightest.”

    So how did the government get involved with marriage at all? Wouldn’t it be better for the government to end (the recognition) of marriage and let churches and People decide what they have?

    Comment by George Malone — January 16, 2010 @ 9:52 pm - January 16, 2010

  30. Conservatives are posting here that gays are selfish if they work for “gay issues” rather than those that affect all Americans. If so, why have a gay conservative group? Shouldn’t gay conservatives just work within other conservative organizations, as they already do? What does a gay conservative group do that can’t be done in other groups?

    Many gays and lesbians on the left support non gay-specific organizations, like the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party. But they also support gay-specific groups, because of support for issues that get short shrift in other organizations. Why is it selfish for a gay person to support an organization working for employment protection, but not selfish for someone to support an organization working for tax cuts? Many people on the left and the right believe that working for the issues they support will help themselves *and* help society.

    Comment by Dan — January 17, 2010 @ 4:36 am - January 17, 2010

  31. George,

    It’s very simple. The statement means exactly what it says.

    We have constitutional protections for things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion because we consider it a natural right of a person to be able to speak his mind and worship (or not) as he pleases.

    There is no natural right to have the government involved in something called “civil marriage.” There is no such thing as “civil friendship” or “civil siblinghood.” Yet we have a perfect natural right to have friends and siblings! If the government abolished civil marriage no natural right would be removed from legal protection thereby.

    As for how governments got so deeply involved in marriages in the first place, you’ll have to turn to a historian of marriage for that. My best guess is that the desire to legally establish inheritance from father to child had something to do with it.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 18, 2010 @ 1:26 am - January 18, 2010

  32. Dan @ 30:

    Conservatives are posting here that gays are selfish if they work for “gay issues” rather than those that affect all Americans.

    Speaking for myself, Dan, I don’t say it’s automatically selfish for a group to promote its own good.

    My objection is to a group that places its own special interests above everything else.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 18, 2010 @ 1:30 am - January 18, 2010

  33. Thanks Dave for answering me, sorry it took so long to get back, was on VACA no computers, hard at first but really cool.

    It’s hard (for me) to think of a “less” involved government.
    I’m starting to think, and have to to some of my friends about marrage, I think for me i want the gov out of it.

    Thanks for being cool with me Dave
    I appreciate it.
    George

    Comment by George Malone — January 25, 2010 @ 8:31 pm - January 25, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.