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).

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 Additionally, as DADT has been repealed, groups no longer need to advocate for gays to be able to serve openly.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.

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.

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.