- Share This Post
- submit
- 1
-
Sparkle (0)
This past weekend, thousands of conservatives descended on the Marriott in Washington, D.C. for the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). Ten thousand conservatives, to be exact. From all corners of the country. In one place. To meet each other.
Sounds terrifying, right? Well, trust me. It is. And I'm conservative.
I typically try to avoid CPAC like the plague, dodging requests to fly myself to Washington, D.C. to hang out with the likes of Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich for a variety of reasons, chief among them a sort of selective agoraphobia. You see, as much as I like being conservative, there's such a thing as having too much at once. CPAC is a destination for college Republicans, dedicated activists and nonprofit staff, and I am none of those. And in off years, it tends to be a bit on the depressing side; last year, for instance, suddenly on the outside, the conference had an air of defeat about it, hopelessness. But this year, I decided to pack up my computer and take a stab at blending in to the crowd, Kool-aid dyed hair notwithstanding.
And I have to say, what happened at CPAC really impressed me. Not only was the experience positive, but creative. Everywhere I looked, there were conservatives and libertarians who were working to embrace culture, challenge it, adapt to it and, for lack of a better term, progress. It's as if the last year forced some hard thinking. Conservatives came out on the other side with a renewed sense of purpose and, as Melissa Clouthier observed, a renewed sense of joy. Maybe, as she says, knowing everyone hates you is liberating in a way.
But our attitudes weren't the only thing freed from the strict confines of the Bush years. This year, as CPAC revved up, it became apparent that libertarian thought was starting to creep into its mainstream, high-collared conservative image. The newly formed gay conservative group, GOProud decided to have a strong presence at the conference, much to the chagrin of the Evangelical groups that have seemingly ruled the Republican Party for a decade. Although they made Liberty University nervous enough to pull out, they were a welcome breath of fresh air at a conference that has, for too long, shied away from welcoming any new blood to our brethren.
In an interview with John Hawkins of Right Wing News, however, GOPround made a great first impression.
(W)hen you look at our legislative agenda and the issues that we're working on, we think the question of "gay rights" has been narrowly defined by the left. We think that if you want to improve the lives of everyday gay and lesbian folks all across this country, you can do things like reform our tax code and provide for personal savings accounts in Social Security, free market health care reform, the type of stuff that's going to improve the lives of every American in this country.
We certainly do understand that there are going to be conservatives who disagree with us on issues like same-sex marriage. We understand that and respect that. But, the fact is that movement conservatives aren't going to agree on everything. I like to live by the Reagan line about "Your 80% friend is your friend, not your 20% enemy."
Now, I'll be honest. I'm a libertarian, so to me, gay marriage is a non-issue. Actually, it's two issues: religious freedom and arbitrary action on the part of the state. I'll start with the tough stuff: allowing individual churches to define for themselves what constitutes a "marriage" within the confines of their ideologies is a First Amendment issue. If one church performs gay marriages and one doesn't because of a dogmatic difference, they have the right to follow the edicts of their faith, and the government should not be allowed to force them to different action. That's not to say people shouldn't work to make changes within their own communities, but from the outside, it's their right to make decisions for themselves.
But when it comes to the state recognizing the superiority of one relationship -- the heterosexual relationship -- over another relationship for purposes of bestowing rights and privileges ... we have a problem. At some point, the government decided it was their job to make sure two people who could have children naturally got married and stayed married for the sake of their family and their community. I don't have any cold, hard facts, but that model seems a tad outdated, judging by the state's actions of
