Pro-Equal Rights Groups Will Be Excluded from CPAC Participation in the Future
By Aaron - February 18, 2011 at 7:57 AM
Filed under Social issues
Filed under Social issues
According to today’s The DailyCaller, American Conservative Union (ACU) President Al Cardenas announced on CSPAN that his organization, which hosts the annual CPAC event, will now vet organizations before allowing them to participate.
The statement hints that gay conservative organizations like GOProud and other groups determined insufficiently conservative by the American Conservative Union may not be welcome at next year’s CPAC.
Cardenas said that groups advocating for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” or supporting gay marriage would not be welcome.
“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,” Cardenas said.
It is unclear if an organization such as ours — which advocates for individual liberty and personal responsibility — will “fit within the tent”. (In the above photo, RLC Chairman Dave Nalle speaks with students at the 2011 RLC booth at CPAC.)
The “Personal Liberties” section of the RLC Statement of Principles includes the following language:
“We affirm the principle that individual rights and liberties are unlimited, as specified in the Ninth Amendment. No law should deny, disparage or restrict the right of every person to privacy, freedom of travel, association, possession of substances, or adult consensual behaviors. We oppose any requirement of government authorization prior to exercising those fundamental freedoms.”
In other words, Republican Liberty Caucus members do not believe that government has the authority to restrict the non-violent associations of consenting adults.
The Republican Liberty Caucus’s participation in the 2011 CPAC conference was met with support and enthusiasm by those who attended the conference. Students and others told us they enjoyed learning more about a grassroots organization committed to restoring America’s Founding principles.
The RLC has been consistent in support of the defense of individual rights and liberties, and praised the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in 2010 while also blasting the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. RLC members believe that limited government requires fair and equal treatment of all peaceful, law-abiding citizens.
Please contact the American Conservative Union’s Board members today to let them know what you think of Mr. Cardenas’s comments: (703) 836-8602.
On February 18th, 2011 at 8:25 am
Sounds like the ACU genuinely feels threatened by the presence of pro-liberty thought. I’d imagine the RLC poses an especially strong threat as it seeks to reform the Republican party from within. Those who tend to identify as “conservative” (which ironically, has little to do with the conservation American values–liberty, not Christianity–or the Constitution) do not support individual rights, and the presence of so many libertarian-leaning Republicans scares the hell out of them. The Constitution and the Bible aren’t exactly compatible, which means that embracing one means giving up important tenets of the other.
On February 18th, 2011 at 9:33 am
A few issues such as marriage seem to be hopelessly confusing both to some people who describe themselves as conservation and to some who describe themselves as libertarian. The Constitution and the Bible only seem to be incompatible if one insists that the Constitution dictates religion or the Bible dictates government. It’s actually rather easy to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman without having to demand that the government enforce that belief. As a real libertarian, I’d prefer to see the government to get out of the marriage business completely, and leave the matter entirely up to individuals and their beliefs (religious or other).
I like to compare the situation to the old story about Churchill asking a woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. When she shyly agrees, he ponders it for a minute and then asks her if she’d sleep with him for 5 schillings. Outraged, she says “What sort of a woman do you think I am?”. Churchill calmly replies, “We’ve already determined that; now we’re just negotiating price.” Social conservatives like to say that they want the government to stay out of their religion. When they insist that government limit marriage or discriminate against gays, they are openly accepting government interference in religion, as long as it favors their personal beliefs. Similarly, libertarians can’t maintain consistently that marriage is a personal issue and that government should enforce a marriage policy of which they personally approve but others don’t. Getting government out of marriage completely is the only truly libertarian approach.
On February 18th, 2011 at 9:42 am
I disagree. The push for recognition of gay marriage is not a fight for “equal rights,” it is an attempt to modify the culture through government power. It is also an attempt to obtain the use of government power over other people and entities in the form of contracts, legal relationships, insurance, etc. In short, it is an attempt to expand state power through extending the use of state power to yet another “favored group.” Libertarians don’t believe state power should be used by any group for any purpose other than to protect life, rights, and property. I oppose favored status for gays, as I oppose favored status for every other minority that currently enjoys it.
On February 18th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
I called and the receptionist seemed confused. They need some more calls- bump it up people!
On February 18th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
They are after all “conservatives” What else would you expect.
On February 18th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Tim
There should not be special rights just equal rights. Why is that so bad. Why should heterosexual married people enjoy special rights that others do not have.
On February 19th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
My partner/wife and I do not want special rights, we just want her to have the same rights to obtain treatment, make decisions, etc. for our children. My ex-husband who has far less invested (except genetically) in the children has the right to make decisions, but she doesn’t. If you insist that we don’t deserve special rights and the government stay out of marriage, then that should apply to everyone-gay or straight. Either make marriage even across the board for all couples who chose to make that level of commitment, or take marriage off the table as a legal commitment for everyone. My wife and I have a legal domestic partnership and had a marriage ceremony for friends and family. I see no reason why, if the government shouldn’t mandate marriage (which it I’m all for), the same type of situation shouldn’t work for everyone.
On February 20th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Video of Al Cardenas’s comments is at the below link, about 8 minutes in:
http://c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Wednesday-Feb-16/10737419656-2/
His basic quote is: “If you are group… and you advocate for gay marriage, that is not within the scope of what we believe the three legs of the stool are” [and consequently, such groups will not be invited to the next CPAC]. The three legs are fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and national “defense”.
At the same time, Cardenas makes clear that (a) the exact vetting process has not been designed, and (b) all groups will pass through the same vetting process.
Later on, in response to a follow-up question, Cardenas again mentions gay marriage, and goes on to mention gays serving in the military. I have to think mentioning gays serving in the military is a slip-up on his part. Gays have been serving in the military since at least President Clinton, and probably since the days of the American Revolution. Additionally, as DADT has been repealed, groups no longer need to advocate for gays to be able to serve openly. That victory has been won, and over three quarters of American’s support the repeal. Is CPAC going to require every group that exhibits at CPAC to call for the reinstatement of DADT, or a complete ban of gays in the military? I doubt it.
@Tim Condon: Government-marriage has always been about government using its power to shape culture. Initially, it was about preventing interracial marriages (i.e., the use of government force to prevent cultural change). As long as government runs the marriage-monopoly, marriage will be a political football. One can hardly blame homosexuals for wanting to play in the same political football game with everyone else.
On February 24th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
“@Tim Condon: Government-marriage has always been about government using its power to shape culture. Initially, it was about preventing interracial marriages (i.e., the use of government force to prevent cultural change). As long as government runs the marriage-monopoly, marriage will be a political football. One can hardly blame homosexuals for wanting to play in the same political football game with everyone else.”
Yes, as long as one accepts the distinctly non-libertarian position that government should have a monopoly on the use of marriage to shape culture in whatever way those in government see fit. Accepting that government monopoly as long as the government uses it to force a condition you might view as fair is just as wrong as someone else demanding that government force the opposite outcome. The RLC shouldn’t be in favor of gay marriage, but rather in favor if ending government meddling in what should be private matter. There’s no legitimate government activity that currently is conditioned on marital status that can’t be handled just as easily and without 95% of the “sturm und drang” by the use of civil unions (with our without a religious or other form of marriage).