Friday, 11 February 2011

Why GOProud Didn’t Belong at CPAC

Written by 

Many say that objection to homosexual group GOProud’s participation in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) convention is much ado about nothing.  And while these critics aren’t necessarily proud of GOProud, they often say that the conservative ranks shouldn’t be creating unnecessary division.  I would agree — but necessary division is a different matter.

The question we’re confronted with here is this: If you have a cause, is it moral and wise to take support from wherever you can get it?  The answer is: not enough data. And the first thing we have to consider is what form that support will take. For example, if I’m running for office and members of CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) want to vote for me (hard to imagine, I know), I won’t take the podium and indignantly say that I only want votes from devout Catholic males of half German, one-quarter Russian and one-quarter Polish ancestry who grew up in NYC.  I won’t even demand that those casting ballots agree with me on one solitary issue. After all, accepting anonymous support doesn’t compromise principle. But if I hold a convention and allow CAIR to sponsor it, it’s a different matter. Its members aren’t then just “supporters of Selwyn Duke”; they are parading under the banner of something that contradicts a significant part of my agenda. There is a profound difference between appearing as a generic supporter of a cause and claiming to support it in the name of another cause. 

Now, some will point out that all sorts of groups support CPAC, and not all of them are doctrinaire conservative. This is true and is where a moral judgment must be made. If the Tea Association of the United States of America wants to support CPAC, hey, drink deeply. But we have to ask: Why are we locking arms with a group defined by sexual behavior? And before you get non-judgmental on me, think for a moment. What if it was a group that represented Nevada prostitutes, polygamists or those engaged in bestiality? It’s just a “lifestyle” choice, right? What’s the difference? I’ll tell you: Decades of social conditioning that started with shows such as Soap. There is something called being “inured.”

As to GOProud’s ideological soundness, some say that it doesn’t matter if the group supports faux marriage because it embraces the constitutional principle that the issue is for states to decide. But this ignores the fact that man does not live by legality alone; issues also have a cultural dimension. It is by far the more important one, too, as the politics eventually will follow the culture no matter what you do. And by supporting faux marriage, GOProud contributes to the twisting of the culture to a point where the states will decide wrongly. Of course, constitutionalists will always disagree on what should be done within the confines of the Constitution. But marriage isn’t state-issued food stamps; we’re talking about a foundational institution that is the nucleus of civilization’s central building block: the family.

As for the conservative family, it should also be pointed out that homosexuals represent a miniscule percentage of its vote. And most of those folks, I suspect, aren’t going to break ranks because GOProud is cast from the barracks. 

If GOProud members really cared about anything resembling traditional conservatism, they would, in the least, leave faux-marriage feelings in the closet.

Remember that many of us have causes close to our hearts that, because they’re considered fringe, we don’t bring to a cause like CPAC. People with homosexual inclinations should be welcome at conservative gatherings just as they are in traditional churches’ pews, but they should be there as Americans — nothing else.

Americanism demands it.