CPAC, Social Conservatives: Wrong on Gays

[Ed Hudgins]

CPAC, Social Conservatives: Wrong on Gays

By Edward Hudgins

March 11, 2013 -- In the wake of the Republicans' 2012 disaster at the polls, the civil war between the GOP’s various factions is in full swing. And the sex obsession of social conservatives, their opposition to conservative gays even being part of the movement, has disgusted and alienated a generation of new voters. If this brand of conservative ends up dominating the GOP and the movement, both will find themselves in the dustbin of history.

CPAC ascending

Witness the Conservative Political Action Conference controversy. First held in 1973, CPAC now attracts 10,000 individuals. Different levels of sponsorship allow groups to have exhibit hall display tables, handouts in conference goodie bags, and program speaking slots.

It’s always been a big-tent event that allows various groups to discuss their views and differences: free trade or nationalistic protectionism; marijuana decriminalization or enhanced drug war; circumspect or imperialist foreign policy.

The Fabrizio-McLaughlin survey taken at CPAC-2009 asked participants which of three choices “comes closest to your core beliefs and ideology.” Of 1,757 respondents, a whopping 74 percent chose “to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.” Only 15 percent answered “to promote traditional values by protecting marriage and protecting the unborn,” with 10 percent giving a strong foreign policy priority. Libertarian-oriented conservatives seemed in the ascendency.

Big tent deflated

But in 2010 and 2011, the participation of the gay Republican group GOProud caused the conservative Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and prominent social conservatives to boycott the event.

In 2012, with a change in leadership at the American Conservative Union, which organizes CPAC, GOProud was banned and in 2013 it was again told to stay away. For many social conservatives, association with conservative gays is a deal-breaker.

But now dozens of high-profile Republicans have signed a legal brief for a case before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages. And Republicans who haven’t signed the brief but who support such unions include former Vice President Dick Chaney, a conservative favorite, and former first lady Laura Bush.

The battle lines are drawn.

Truths for social conservatives

So it’s time to speak frankly to social conservative friends concerning their position on gays.

First folks, allowing gays to form the specific partnership contract called “marriage” in no way limits your freedom to marry or not. You don’t like gay marriage? Then don’t marry a gay! I’m a married hetero with two beautiful toddler daughters and gay unions are no threat to my family.

Second, there’s no evidence that gay unions have adverse social effects for heterosexuals. They don't undermine families, spread sexually-transmitted diseases, or encourage the out-of-wedlock births and broken homes that lead to other social pathologies. Even though same-sex unions were banned everywhere until very recently, half of heterosexual marriages now end in divorce.

Third, stop obsessing about the legal piece of paper inscribed with the letters M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E. If you weren’t told, you wouldn’t even know if a gay couple living together in a loving, exclusive relationship had such a piece of paper stashed away in their sock drawer.

Fourth, you’re on the losing side of history. Most young people have no problem with gays or gay marriage. In a decade or so gay marriage in this country will be the rule and the country will be better for it.

Fifth, you’re seen by many people as pig-headed bigots. Don’t give us the “hate the sin, love the sinner” rot. I won’t claim to know your hearts, but how are we to take the fact that many of you won’t attend an event also attended by gay Republicans who probably agree with you on free markets and limited government? You’re alienating potential allies who want nothing to do with a party or movement dominated the likes of you.

Sixth, all the money and effort you put into ostracizing gays and limiting their liberty is money and effort not spent fighting against the expansion of government control over every aspect of our lives. Leftists and socialists love you. You’re wasting your time and looking foolish while they accumulate power.

Seventh, in the end your liberty to live by your values and religion will be attenuated by powerful leftists and socialists. Wait till they go after home schooling!

You social conservatives claim to understand how individuals harm themselves when they allow their whims and urges to rule them unchecked. You seem driven by an irrational obsession concerning gays and other peoples’ sex lives. Resist that master passion! Focus on limiting government in our lives or all of our lives will soon be limited by government.

------------

Hudgins is director of advocacy for The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

*Edward Hudgins, “Questions For Conservatives About Gay Marriage And Sock Drawers.” July 1, 2011.

*Edward Hudgins, “CPAC 2009: A Focus on Freedom.” March 6, 2009.

[syrakusos]

Ed, I know that you are smart enough to "get" the issues. These people do not want to turn a deaf ear or blind eye. They want to ban the practice. The same applies to abortion. "If you are opposed to abortion, then do not have one." ignores the real issue.

Ayn Rand was a Republican by accident, largely, for her years with Dewey or whaterve. Tricia Nixon expressed some interest. Then Alen Greenspan was appointed and Gerald Ford re-legalized gold. (It was never really illegal - see here: http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_7861.aspx - but that is not the point.) So, Objectivists invest their time and effort trying to get the Republicans to be rational about social issues, rather than trying to get the Democrats to be rational on economic issues.

Both strategies are equally irrational.

The people who want to ban gay marriage (also, abortions and marijuana, as well as modern art, modern music, and modern living in general), do not care what you want. They are opposed to gay marriange; and they do not want anyone else to have that right. They are fascists. Face it. Realize with whom you are in bed.

Conservatives are not your allies, any more than liberals are.

Again, why not wring your hands over the economic planks in the Democratic Party platform? They almost agree with you, but on other issues.

Like Dagny in the Valley you need to come to grips with the hard reality of who really benefits from your hard work. You give it up to the Republicans and conservatives. "They want to live, don't they?" Dagny asked. "Do they?" Francisco replied.

[Jerry Biggers]

CPAC, Social Conservatives: Wrong on Gays

By Edward Hudgins

March 11, 2013 -- In the wake of the Republicans' 2012 disaster at the polls, the civil war between the GOP’s various factions is in full swing. And the sex obsession of social conservatives, their opposition to conservative gays even being part of the movement, has disgusted and alienated a generation of new voters. If this brand of conservative ends up dominating the GOP and the movement, both will find themselves in the dustbin of history.

CPAC ascending

Witness the Conservative Political Action Conference controversy. First held in 1973, CPAC now attracts 10,000 individuals. Different levels of sponsorship allow groups to have exhibit hall display tables, handouts in conference goodie bags, and program speaking slots.

It’s always been a big-tent event that allows various groups to discuss their views and differences: free trade or nationalistic protectionism; marijuana decriminalization or enhanced drug war; circumspect or imperialist foreign policy.

The Fabrizio-McLaughlin survey taken at CPAC-2009 asked participants which of three choices “comes closest to your core beliefs and ideology.” Of 1,757 respondents, a whopping 74 percent chose “to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.” Only 15 percent answered “to promote traditional values by protecting marriage and protecting the unborn,” with 10 percent giving a strong foreign policy priority. Libertarian-oriented conservatives seemed in the ascendency.

Big tent deflated

But in 2010 and 2011, the participation of the gay Republican group GOProud caused the conservative Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and prominent social conservatives to boycott the event.

In 2012, with a change in leadership at the American Conservative Union, which organizes CPAC, GOProud was banned and in 2013 it was again told to stay away. For many social conservatives, association with conservative gays is a deal-breaker.

But now dozens of high-profile Republicans have signed a legal brief for a case before the Supreme Court seeking to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages. And Republicans who haven’t signed the brief but who support such unions include former Vice President Dick Chaney, a conservative favorite, and former first lady Laura Bush.

The battle lines are drawn.

Truths for social conservatives

So it’s time to speak frankly to social conservative friends concerning their position on gays.

First folks, allowing gays to form the specific partnership contract called “marriage” in no way limits your freedom to marry or not. You don’t like gay marriage? Then don’t marry a gay! I’m a married hetero with two beautiful toddler daughters and gay unions are no threat to my family.

Second, there’s no evidence that gay unions have adverse social effects for heterosexuals. They don't undermine families, spread sexually-transmitted diseases, or encourage the out-of-wedlock births and broken homes that lead to other social pathologies. Even though same-sex unions were banned everywhere until very recently, half of heterosexual marriages now end in divorce.

Third, stop obsessing about the legal piece of paper inscribed with the letters M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E. If you weren’t told, you wouldn’t even know if a gay couple living together in a loving, exclusive relationship had such a piece of paper stashed away in their sock drawer.

Fourth, you’re on the losing side of history. Most young people have no problem with gays or gay marriage. In a decade or so gay marriage in this country will be the rule and the country will be better for it.

Fifth, you’re seen by many people as pig-headed bigots. Don’t give us the “hate the sin, love the sinner” rot. I won’t claim to know your hearts, but how are we to take the fact that many of you won’t attend an event also attended by gay Republicans who probably agree with you on free markets and limited government? You’re alienating potential allies who want nothing to do with a party or movement dominated the likes of you.

Sixth, all the money and effort you put into ostracizing gays and limiting their liberty is money and effort not spent fighting against the expansion of government control over every aspect of our lives. Leftists and socialists love you. You’re wasting your time and looking foolish while they accumulate power.

Seventh, in the end your liberty to live by your values and religion will be attenuated by powerful leftists and socialists. Wait till they go after home schooling!

You social conservatives claim to understand how individuals harm themselves when they allow their whims and urges to rule them unchecked. You seem driven by an irrational obsession concerning gays and other peoples’ sex lives. Resist that master passion! Focus on limiting government in our lives or all of our lives will soon be limited by government.

------------

Hudgins is director of advocacy for The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

*Edward Hudgins, “Questions For Conservatives About Gay Marriage And Sock Drawers.” July 1, 2011.

*Edward Hudgins, “CPAC 2009: A Focus on Freedom.” March 6, 2009.

Ed,

If your article was posted only on libertarian/objectivist websites - then you are "speaking to the choir," and I don't mean religious choir. Most people in our rarified atmosphere would agree with what you are saying here, but those attracted to traditionalist or social conservatism likely will not. And certainly not those subscribing to christian fundamentalism of the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/Jimmy Swaggert/Bob Jones University crowd.

This is somewhat ironic, since some of their own patron saints were either openly gay or "in the closet." Such as Whittaker Chambers, a Buckleyite favorite. Chambers spent most of his time saving us from the communists (of which he knew a lot) and infamously, from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I guess he didn't have enough time left over to speak up for those that shared his sexual preferences. But generally, information on prominent conservatives (and leftists, such as John Maynard Keynes) who were also gay was not revealed during their lifetime, giving them the opportunity to condemn what they, themselves, also practiced.. This, of course, is not unusual. But not particularly commendable.

Traditionalist or social conservatives do not really have much in common with libertarian conservatives. They only make common cause to oppose the left. Their devotion to free market principles is lip-service. Scratch just a little deeper and their predilection to authoritarianism jumps out. Their heroes of the past, such as John Calvin and Martin Luther, give a good idea of how they would run a society of which they had total control. Am I exaggerating? Well, take a look at the social goals of Gary North, a conservative economist who also advocates theocratic rule - along the lines prescribed in Leviticus. Even Martin Luther might object.

[Jerry Biggers]

Ed, I know that you are smart enough to "get" the issues. These people do not want to turn a deaf ear or blind eye. They want to ban the practice. The same applies to abortion. "If you are opposed to abortion, then do not have one." ignores the real issue.

Ayn Rand was a Republican by accident, largely, for her years with Dewey or whaterve. Tricia Nixon expressed some interest. Then Alen Greenspan was appointed and Gerald Ford re-legalized gold. (It was never really illegal - see here: http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_7861.aspx - but that is not the point.) So, Objectivists invest their time and effort trying to get the Republicans to be rational about social issues, rather than trying to get the Democrats to be rational on economic issues.

Both strategies are equally irrational.

The people who want to ban gay marriage (also, abortions and marijuana, as well as modern art, modern music, and modern living in general), do not care what you want. They are opposed to gay marriange; and they do not want anyone else to have that right. They are fascists. Face it. Realize with whom you are in bed.

Conservatives are not your allies, any more than liberals are.

Again, why not wring your hands over the economic planks in the Democratic Party platform? They almost agree with you, but on other issues.

Like Dagny in the Valley you need to come to grips with the hard reality of who really benefits from your hard work. You give it up to the Republicans and conservatives. "They want to live, don't they?" Dagny asked. "Do they?" Francisco replied.

I don't think that Ayn Rand was a Republican, "accidentally." During the 1930s and 1940s, there were no other viable choices. The Democratic Party of Roosevelt was anathema (as would be the current Democratic Party of Obama, if she were alive). She ended her direct involvement when Willkie tried to "outRoosevelt, Roosevelt", in his Presidential campaign. She was quite correct that the Republican Party was bereft of ideas to effectively oppose the Democrats' liberalism. Regrettably, they are still thrashing around, as evidenced in the clown show called the Republican 2012 Presidential debates.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party would be even more inhospitable to Rand's views. Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter,Clinton, Obama - did not advocate or practice anything that would be compatible with Rand's political views.

The Democratic Party has an ideology that practically all Democrats adher to (whether they openly proclaim it or not) it is called Liberalism (as they appropriated that term, discarding what is now called "Classical Liberalism") or "Progressiveism" (using that designation - and getting away with it - would be a good example of what Rand called a "package deal."). A motivating force in this ideology is what the libs like to call, fondly, "activist government," an elitist/paternalistic tool if there ever was one - they know what is good for us better than we do. If necessary, and it usually is, they will force it upon us. They believe that most of us need to be "taken care of," and, luckily, they are here to show us the error of our ways.

Another term that describes their idea of government activism is "friendly fascism." Before that term was coined, Rand described its essence her essay, "The Fascist New Frontier." In terms of economic doctrines, the Democrats are much closer to what the original Fascists (with a capital F) called the "corporate state." This issue was recently described in great detail in Jonah Goldberg's recent book, Liberal Fascism, which enraged the libs no end (They should of had a similar reaction to Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels, but Leonard apparently was not on their "to read" list)..

As soon as the social conservatives get a good understanding of what Objectivism stands for (for the most part, they are only dimly aware of Objectivism. Emphasis on "dimly".) they will start screaming their opposition to it as "anti-Christian." The liberals, at least those in the MSM and other online or in-print journals, have been screaming against Rand, ever more hysterically, since Obama was first elected, the Tea Party opposition arose, and started brandishing copies of Atlas Shrugged. They just can't understand it - how many times must they excoriate her in print?

They just don't get it: attacks on Rand using ad hominem, ridicule, hyberbole, and "strawman" arguments, shouted-out in anger and frustration only encourages exactly what they don't want, ever more curious people going out and buying Atlas Shrugged! When these readers notice the discrepancy (Grand Canyon-wide) between what they have heard from the media, and what Rand actually advocated, they begin to lose all credibility - which is transferred to Rand. Thus the libs are creating exactly what they fear. They just don't get it.

.

[syrakusos]

Two nice posts, Jerry. Thanks. The betrayal of Objectivism by Paul Ryan should be ample proof. Of course, the moral failing is not his, but the Atlas Society's. They were so hungry for recognition by a legitimate authority that they never asked him point blank what he believed (and believes). He used Objectivists to leverage himself within the Republican Party and once he got to where he was going, he found us an embarrassment. History offers many other examples.

[Samson Corwell]

Ah, social conservatives, my favorite targets ideological opponents. The social conservatives who aren't overly obsessed with the politics are usually very nice people. Once you drift into the realm of the law, then they turn nasty (i.e., Ann Coulter). I sharpen my wit just for them.

And don't assume that Paul Ryan betrayed Objectivism. I doubt he was faithful to it to begin with.

[GALTGULCH8]

In the meantime, the Young Americans For Liberty and the Students For Liberty continue to grow and educate the younger generation who are open to listening to reason and care about their own future. Their growth is not limited to American youth but is now worldwide and the only question is whether there is enough time.

[syrakusos]

CNN network exclusive:

Gay-marriage foe Sen. Rob Portman is reversing his hardline position after revealing that his son is gay.

... oh, so now it's different because it is his son...

[Selene]

CNN network exclusive:

Gay-marriage foe Sen. Rob Portman is reversing his hardline position after revealing that his son is gay.

... oh, so now it's different because it is his son...

A reversal of the "not in my backyard" argument?*

Additionally, Portman is certainly not a "conservative," whatever the hell that means today.

Once again, we are chasing an ittelevant issue.

As folks that agree with the underlying principles of small "o," Objecticism, Portman is another example of the "moral" and "ethical" corruption that is rampant in the Senate of the US.

A...

*NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"), or Nimby, is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away. Opposing residents themselves are sometimes called Nimbies.

[PDS]

CNN network exclusive:

Gay-marriage foe Sen. Rob Portman is reversing his hardline position after revealing that his son is gay.

... oh, so now it's different because it is his son...

No shit.

Apparently, it never occurred to the Good Senator that it is actually always somebody's son or daughter...