Supporters Of Gay Marriage, DADT Repeal To Be Banned From CPAC

The social conservatives seems to have won the battle over CPAC.

The new head of the American Conservative Union spoke on C-SPAN earlier today and essentially threw GOProud and other groups who may support gay marriage or oppose Don’t Ask Don’t Tell under the bus:

If you are a group — and this has got nothing to do with your orientation — if you are a group of straight couples, and you advocate gay marriage, that’s not within the scope of what we believe the three legs of the stool of the movement are. So it’s got nothing to do with your orientation. It’s got to do with the principles you advocate. There are a number of gays in America who don’t advocate gays in the military or gay marriage. They’ll fit within the tent.

This ban apparently only applies to sponsorship and wouldn’t bar someone who takes these positions from speaking at the conference. As Dave Weigel notes, this is a good thing because, if it did, it would mean that Dick Cheney, Pat Toomey, and Ron Paul, among others, wouldn’t be allowed to participate.

So, apparently, hatred of gay people is fine but advocating that they be treated equally is not. Pretty sad actually.

Here’s video of the C-Span interview:

Update: GOProud’s Christopher Barron responds:

Repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has been authorized by Congress and is expected to be implemented by the end of 2011. Same-sex marriage thus remains the major salient issue in Cardenas’ statement. GOProud does not support action to legalize same-sex marriage at the federal level, saying the issue is for states to decide.

GOProud Chairman Christopher Barron told TheDC, “We have been told by multiple sources on the ACU board that no decision has been made about GOProud and CPAC 2012.”

“If there is a vetting process that looks at the policy positions held by the participating organizations then GOProud will clearly be back as a sponsor next year,” said Barron.

Barron said that his organization’s legislative agenda “makes it clear that we are not just a kinda conservative organization we are a *very* conservative organization.”

The group does support repealing DOMA, though, and for many social conservatives that seems to be enough to disqualify you.

FILED UNDER: US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. sam says:

    Hmmm. Well, here’s some proof that the younger generation of conservatives are more enlightened than the elder generation. These kids are magnificent.

    Jamie Kelso, Stone Racist, Gets Head Handed to Him at CPAC by Young Conservatives Who Think He’s Full of Shit and then flees.

  2. michael reynolds says:

    And yet you and James will still attend next year. Because who cares if you’re in a room full of bigots so long as they support your right to slightly lower marginal tax rates.

  3. mantis says:

    Well, here’s some proof that the younger generation of conservatives are more enlightened than the elder generation. These kids are magnificent.

    And not welcome next year.

  4. James Joyner says:

    Michael,

    I think this was the first year for Doug and Dodd. I go to make fun and for the after parties. Although, I gotta admit, I can take less and less of the conference itself each year.

  5. Matt B says:

    Just like an academic conference eh?

  6. anjin-san says:

    James… might be a good time to.forgo a party or two and show folks you are about something.

  7. michael reynolds says:

    James:

    You realize my frustration that men like you and Doug are still associated with the GOP, right?

    I want guys like you to go and build a party that offers me a viable alternative. I’m considering a move to SF this summer and I can guarantee that after a few months there I’ll be irritated to the depths by liberals. But there’s no way I can even consider this GOP. It’s an absolute non-starter.

    I wouldn’t want to have to buy a car if there was only one manufacturer, and I don’t like being hemmed in with only one choice for my vote. I’m an American for God’s sake: I’m spoiled and want more options. But I wouldn’t give a vote to this GOP even if the Democratic ticket as Moulitsas-Olbermann.

    Give us a party that is serious about fiscal responsibility and individual liberty and, by the way, sane.

  8. ponce says:

    “You realize my frustration that men like you and Doug are still associated with the GOP, right? ”

    Where else would they go?

  9. mantis says:

    I second what Michael said. I could easily be lured away from Democrats if a reasonable alternative emerged.

  10. Brian Lehman says:

    If CPAC decides to move backwards, then I will seriously consider not attending at least the conference part. Any conference that says that GOProud is banned, but Ann Coulter gets a prime speaking spot, is not something I have any interest in.

  11. Brummagem Joe says:

    michael reynolds says:
    Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 16:51
    James:

    “You realize my frustration that men like you and Doug are still associated with the GOP,”
    right?

    I’m not frustrated just perplexed. Why do reasonably intelligent people associate with these numbskulls? Now I know. It’s the parties.

  12. sam says:

    ” Now I know. It’s the parties.”

    Don’t leave out the laugh quotient.

  13. tom p says:

    “So, apparently, hatred of gay people is fine but advocating that they be treated equally is not.”

    Doug, James: It is your party, are you proud of it? If not, what are you going to do about it? I well remember the election of 2002… I was SO pissed off at Jean Carnahan because she voted for the Iraq War that I did not vote that year… She lost.

    Is there a line your party can not cross? Or will you continue to throw people under the bus as long as the GOP meets your “economic needs”?

    If I thought there was a god, I would pray for your souls. As is, you are on your own.

  14. anjin-san says:

    > I could easily be lured away from Democrats if a reasonable alternative emerged.

    Second that. I became a Democrat pretty much because the Bush takeover of the party made it to embarrasing to be associated with the GOP. If Chuck Hagel was the GOP candidate for President in 2012, I would feel like I had a real option.

    But of course the conservative ran him out of government on a rail because he was a war hero who would not support bills he had not read, and would not forget what he was about simply because it was politically expedient.

    Where has the party of Eisenhower gone? A nation turns its lonely eyes to…. well, there is nothing to turn to.

  15. anjin-san says:

    You know James, Doug, Steven, as i look at the posts on this thread, I see guys who’s opinions I respect calling out to you to make a stand. Some of them I actually know a bit, some are just voices on the internet that seem to say things that make sense more often than not.

    Who do you want to be aligned with? Intelligent, thoughtful people, or bithead and Jay Tea? You may not want to come to grips with it, but you are choosing the latter…

  16. Not advocating gay marriage is not hating gays. I was all for GOProud being at CPAC this year until I saw how they behaved.

    Conservativism wants no part of identity politics and that is all GOProud is about. What you do in the privacy of your bedroom is your business. I don’t make the details of what goes on in mine public, and I have no interest in hearing what goes on in yours. Keep your private life private.

    Gay people are not prevented from getting married. They can get married. The desire or lack thereof to have sex with the person you marry is not is the government’s business. The government has no place in the bedroom unless what you are doing endangers a minor.

  17. matt says:

    The sad thing is there are actually some parties that would follow Micheal’s dream but they just don’t have a chance of winning..

  18. michael reynolds says:

    At very least I’d like to see James and Doug offer some positive defense of the GOP — not its abstract and never-honored principles — but the actual party as it is.

    How do decent men associate themselves with a party that is openly homophobic, openly anti-Muslim, that is openly anti-immigrant, that is covertly (barely covert) racist, that embraces the paranoid rantings of Glen Beck, that is too gutless to stand up to Rush Limbaugh, that grants a podium to Ann Coulter, that ran Sarah Palin as Vice President and seriously considers her for the White House, that throws off one paranoid fantasy after another, that sneers at learning, that denies scientific reality and impedes medical science?

    How?

  19. Matt B says:

    @Just a Conservative Girl, attempting to reconcile
    Conservativism wants no part of identity politics
    with the notion that GOProud and other groups that run afoul of “Conservative Inc.” are immediately denied the ability to sponsor causes an almost shut down level of cognitive dissonance.

    Much like judicial activism seems to only occur when your side gets ruled against, “Identity Politics” is always a disease of the other side. i.e. “Obama got where he is because of identity politics, but Palin got where she is because she’s real and represents my views (those of good honest Americans in fly-over country, you know, the real US).”

    Piece of advice, all politics is identity politics. Period.

  20. Franklin says:

    just a conservative girl: They can get married. The desire or lack thereof to have sex with the person you marry is not is the government’s business.

    So you’d be happily married to a guy that you couldn’t have sex with?

    And I’m pretty sure sexual orientation goes beyond just sex … you’re suggesting the totally impractical idea of marrying someone you don’t love or want to be with, even though there’s someone else that you could love and do want to be with. That’s literally one of the worst and most baffling arguments against same-sex marriage ever.

  21. anjin-san says:

    > Gay people are not prevented from getting married. They can get married

    What planet do you live on?

  22. Rob Prather says:

    anjin-san,

    I think her point, as confused as it is, is that gay people can get married, but only to members of the opposite sex. She seems to imagine people wanting to get married and stay in a celibate relationship. Stupid, I know.

  23. An Interested Party says:

    “Conservativism wants no part of identity politics…”

    Unless, of course, the identity in question is a white, heterosexual, Christian male…

  24. anjin-san says:

    > I think her point, as confused as it is, is that gay people can get married, but only to members of the opposite sex.

    Sort of like when black folks could ride the bus, but only in the back…

  25. michael reynolds says:

    anjin:

    Or for that matter when black people couldn’t marry white people. See, they could totally get married, just not to anyone who was a different color.

  26. Rob Prather says:

    michael and anjin-san,

    Indeed.

  27. anjin-san says:

    Well, what is the right of people to marry who they love when weight against the delicate sensibilities of bigots here in the land of the (kinda sorta) free?

  28. Janis Gore says:

    I’ve made an argument, and I still think it still stands, that gays should have stood with “civil unions” rather than “marriage” as a goal for acquiring civil rights.

    “The word “marriage” evokes religious connotations that “civil union” doesn’t. My husband and i entered a union that didn’t yield any promise of offspring. We entered a contract.

  29. anjin-san says:

    > I’ve made an argument, and I still think it still stands, that gays should have stood with “civil unions” rather than “marriage” as a goal for acquiring civil rights.

    I don’t see this. Why should gays be denied the full and equal benefits of marriage? I don’t think the American Revolution was about halfway rights, it was about inalienable rights… Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as others are not doing harm, I don’t get to decide what constitutes happiness for them, nor they for I.

  30. sam says:

    “I think her point, as confused as it is, is that gay people can get married, but only to members of the opposite sex. ”

    I believe the technical term for that is “beardiage”.

  31. MarkedMan says:

    The idea that gays should have to settle for civil unions because if they get married it makes certain people uncomfortable… That’s such a laughable statement. How can anyone propose it as a real idea? That there are “certain people” in the US, you know, the “right kind”, that get to keep other people from getting married because otherwise they might feel uncomfortable? Really? That’s what you elect your politicians for?

  32. Janis Gore says:

    The Hawaii civil unions bill that just passed confers the same rights and responsibilities to partners as marriage, I read here:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/17/hawaii.civil.unions/?hpt=T2

    And was passed in a state that also has a “defense of marriage” amendment on the books.

    As a practical matter of rights, it was easier to go forward with “civil unions.”

  33. Pug says:

    I like Ike.

    These Republicans? Meh.

  34. mantis says:

    The Hawaii civil unions bill that just passed confers the same rights and responsibilities to partners as marriage, I read here:

    Yes, but that does nothing for those people regarding federal issues, such as social security benefits and taxes. Until we have a federal recognition of gay partnerships as equal to those of straight marriages, whether it be gay marriage or something else, there is no equality.

  35. Janis Gore says:

    And I continue to say that the word “marriage” evokes a woman in a Vera Wang dress in procession up the aisle to meet her husband in St. Patrick’s Cathedral with angels looking on.

    “Civil union” is a perfectly good word to describe a contract between two people with affections for one another. And works just as well.

    At the divorce, should it happen, the judge won’t be considering panoply. He’ll be dividing assets according to contract.

  36. Janis Gore says:

    Phrase, I should say.

  37. anjin-san says:

    > And works just as well.

    Says you. I know a lot of folks who see it quite differently, and they are the ones who have the governments boot on their backs, not you.

  38. Janis Gore says:

    Tell me more Anjin-San. I am willing to learn.

  39. An Interested Party says:

    “And I continue to say that the word ‘marriage’ evokes a woman in a Vera Wang dress in procession up the aisle to meet her husband in St. Patrick’s Cathedral with angels looking on.”

    See, here’s the thing…whatever your view is of the word “marriage” should not be the law of the land, after all, with all due respect, who the hell are you? As for those who have that metaphorical government boot on their backs, that would be every other citizen of this country that doesn’t enjoy all the same rights that you do…

  40. Janis Gore says:

    Thirteen years ago, 69 percent of Hawaiians passed the first “defense of marriage” amendment. On Wednesday, the governor will sign a “civil unions” bill.

    Bitch, moan, complain — it’s progress.

  41. anjin-san says:

    Janis,

    Hit some gay blogs and see what the people who are the actual victims of this discrimination are saying. I tried to post a few links for you, but was blocked. (something I find interesting)

    > Bitch, moan, complain — it’s progress.

    The road to freedom is not paved with easy compromise. Justice denied to gays/lesbians is justice denied to me as well, and I am pretty pissed about it.