GOProud Roils Conservative Confab for Second Year Running

The annual convention of conservative organizations known as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) covers the ideological rightward rainbow, from moderate to fringe--and, as of last year, gay conservatives have also been part of that spectrum.

For the anti-gay fringe, however, GLBTs in the "big tent" of conservatism is not a welcome development. 2010's CPAC was co-sponsored by gay conservative group GOProud, which resulted in a flurry of homophobic pronouncements from bloggers like Peter LaBarbera, the driving force behind Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), who slammed GOProud last year in a posting that declared, "[W]e at AFTAH dispute their definition of 'conservative,' which would have the movement's Founding Fathers, like Russell Kirk... rolling over in their graves."

LaBarbera reported in a December, 2009, posting that Matt Barber of the anti-gay religious group Liberty Counsel was organizing a boycott of the event unless GOProud were dismissed as co-sponsor. The Liberty Counsel Web site describes the group's mission as "Restoring the Culture One Case at a Time by Advancing Religious Freedom, the Sanctity of Human Life and the Traditional Family."

"Among other things, GOProud advocates in favor of both 'gay marriage' and 'civil unions,' against pro-marriage constitutional amendments ; is pushing for the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and advocates in favor of federal 'partnership benefits' for homosexuals. This group is pushing a radical leftist agenda that is an affront to the GOP platform, conservatism and, most importantly, the Word of God," LaBarbera quoted Barber as writing in an email to religious conservatives.

What a difference a year makes... or doesn't. The 2011 edition of CPAC will include GOProud once more, and some of the biggest names in big-ticket homophobia are bailing on the event.

In a Dec. 28 posting, LaBarbera urged readers to "Contact American Conservative Union (703-836-8602) and urge them to live up to their name and stop 'gaying down' conservatism by embracing pro-homosexuality activism through CPAC." The posting included text that declared, "There is nothing 'conservative' about promoting homosexual behavior in the name of 'civil rights.' "

The posting also contained the content of a Dec. 27 article from anti-gay religious website WorldNetDaily that announced the event's boycotting by "[t]wo of the nation's premier moral issues organizations"--namely, vociferously anti-gay groups the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America.

"We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions," said the FRC's Tom McClusky, "However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles."

CPAC organizer the American Conservative Union is in the midst of an embezzlement crisis, the WDN posting said.

"CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," said Penny Nance, the head of Concerned Women for America.

The FRC and CWA were not alone in forsaking the more inclusive conservative confab; WND reported that several other fringe groups, including equally anti-gay organizations the Center for Military Readiness (which stringently opposed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell), Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage. The latter is the group behind nation-wide attempts to roll back or prevent marriage equality, including the 2008 California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which rescinded then-existing marriage rights for gay and lesbian families.

The WND posting quoted LaBarbera in turn, with the anti-gay blogger saying, "It is gratifying to see FRC and CWA respond appropriately to CPAC's moral sellout of allowing GOProud as a sponsor." LaBarbera went on to claim, "By bringing in GOProud, CPAC was effectively saying moral opposition to homosexuality is no longer welcome in the conservative movement."

The AFTAH front man added, "Shame on CPAC for defending the absurd proposition that one can be 'conservative' while embracing moral surrender--in this case the idea espoused by GOProud of the government granting 'rights' and benefits based on sinful sexual conduct long regarded as anathema to biblical and Judeo-Christian values."

Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver was also quoted in the WND article. Staver claimed that GOProud was seeking to "undermine" the Armed Forces of the United States, as well as the institution of marriage. "Anything that undermines marriage also undermines our freedom and economy," Staver asserted. "It is contrary to our fundamental values to have as a cosponsor an organization that promotes same-sex marriage."

A Dec. 29 Twitter message from GOProud's Chris Barron stated the organization's stance on marriage equality succinctly. "GOProud does not have a position on marriage beyond believing it's a state issue," tweeted Barron.

GOProud not only co-sponsored last February's CPAC, but also ruffled fringe feathers over the summer by inviting right-wing icon Ann Coulter to deliver the keynote address at its Homocon convention in September. When Coulter agreed, she was dropped by WND, which had previously signed her onto speak at its own September gathering, the so-called "taking Back America" conference.

In describing its "Taking Back America" conference, WND posted text reading, "The choice is simple: the world of standards and morality, self-government and accountability to God or the world of tyranny and ever-changing moral codes enforced by government." Continued the text, "The only way we can reestablish our freedom--our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--is to break the hammerlock of statism and the notion that moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people's passions and behavior." The text did not indicate what agency, if not government, would enforce this brand of freedom.

Coulter Muzzled by the Right

WND editor Joseph Farah contacted Coulter about her speaking engagement at Homocon, and Coulter responded to his query, "I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don't endorse their views. I've spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion.

"The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference," Coulter continued. "I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences."

After WND published passages from the email exchange, Coulter told another news site, the Daily Caller, that "[T]his was an email exchange [between] friends and even though I didn't expressly say 'OFF THE RECORD' and I believe everything I said, he's a swine for using my private emails politely answering him," a WND follow-up article reported on Aug. 18 "[W]hy would he do such a despicable thing?" added Coulter, going to on to say it was "for PUBLICITY."

Coulter went on to question Farah's commitment to the conservative cause, writing that the editor "could give less than two sh-ts about the conservative movement."

"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about 'taking America back' when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud," Farah told his own news site.

The growing rift between mainstream and fringe conservative groups caught the attention of the blogosphere. When anti-gay fringe-right groups announced they would not be in attendance at CPAC in 2011, Gawker took note with a Dec. 28 article titled, "ConservaGays Scaring Away Real Conservatives?"

"Washington's annual Conservative Political Action Conference is always a major audition for Republican presidential candidates, who show up and tell interest groups whatever they want to hear. But in 2011, will the gays scare everyone away?" wondered the Gawker article.

The answer to that may well lie in what direction mainstream conservatism takes in the future. Salon.com posted text on Dec. 28 positing that, "within the conservative movement... anti-gay forces are growing more aggressive."

"CPAC is an important event and I hope that all conservatives will join in participating," the group's executive director, Jimmy LaSalvia, told Salon. "We're very proud of our record, and we'll put our conservative credentials up against anyone."

Tea Party leaders have expressed a desire to see the new Republican leadership--which is poised to dominate the House and exert greater influence in the Senate--continue with the same mixture that won Republican candidates elections in many of the mid-term elections around the country: a focus on fiscal matters, and less emphasis on social issues. Other individuals affiliated with the Tea Party, however, have told GOP leaders just the opposite: that they expect to see a certain stripe of conservatism, including opposition to full GLBT legal equality, reflected in the actions of newly ascendant Republicans.

Commentators at conservative chat site Free Republic reflected one side of the multi-faceted debate on the right. "Yeah. CPAC is gay. "Conservative means to CONSERVE America, not to allow it to descend into faggotry and death," wrote one.

"It's FudgePAC now," wrote another. "A conservative speaker even got boo'd and shouted down last year for his pro-family views."

The comment was a reference to anti-gay firebrand Ryan Sorba, who appeared as a speaker representing the California Young Americans for Freedom at the CPAC convention. Sorba had been invited by the moderator to step to the microphone to talk about how he had participated in an investigation into ACORN and had been misidentified by FOX News celebrity Glenn Beck. Sorba had another agenda, however.

"Just to change the subject for just a second," Sorba told his audience upon reaching the podium, "I'd like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPride [sic] to this event." The crowd instantly began to jeer Sorba, who responded, "Bring it. Bring it. I love it. I love it. I love it."

A third Free Republic chat participant wrote, "FudgePAC. You should copyright that...LOL!!!"

Wrote another, "The reality is that government needs to do less. We need less special legislation for special groups, and we need drastically less government spending. That kind of fiscal conservatism will lead inevitably to social conservatism. We can get there, but not if organizations like CPAC try to act like Liberal Democrats."

Meantime, Farah posted a Dec. 28 commentary at the Post Chronicle, where he outlined the general views of the extreme right. The article, titled "It's Right and Wrong, Stupid!" lumped Democrats and socialists together and declared that they were all atheists, going on to argue that, "the real divide in American society today" is "a divide between those who believe in God and His moral laws and those who only believe in what we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. It's a divide between those who know God defines right and wrong and those who believe in doing what is right in his own eyes."

Farah also asserted his bona fides as a fiscal conservative, writing, "If I had the chance to set economic policy for America, I would make the heads of libertarians spin with my radical agenda." However, "America's problems go much deeper than economics," added Farah. "And you can't solve those problems with a purely economic agenda. We simply can't remain a free, independent, sovereign, self-governing nation under the rule of law and the will of the people without a consensus on basic moral principles."

Farah wen to assert that, "true 'conservatives' should be people who stand in defense of God's law--the preservation of the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Western civilization, common sense and Judeo-Christian morality."

For mainstream conservatives, however--and gays who agree that less intrusive government and greater personal freedom are a step toward reversing a number of America's major problems--the issue may be a non-starter. In a Dec. 29 Washington Examiner op-ed, Andrew Ian Dodge posed the question, "Is it a useful boycott if no one cares?"

"The response on the blogs and elsewhere has been less upset than the boycotters might have hoped, even on the right," noted Dodge, before going on to write, "It remains to be seen if this boycott will get any more takers. Many suspect that this February's CPAC event will be their most successful in its entire history."

The 2011 CPAC will take place Feb. 10-12.