Did CPAC Kick GOProud To The Curb Like Last Night’s Trick?

On Friday afternoon, rumors started spreading that the gay Republican group GOProud was being banned from the the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, one of the largest gatherings of conservative groups in the country.

While GOProud has attended the conference for the past two years, and even engendered the support of reactionary diva Ann Coulter, groups like the Heritage Foundation, Media Research Center and Family Research Council have balked its inclusion.

Though GOProud chair Christopher Barron originally denied the diss, by Saturday a letter from GOProud’s Board of Directors confirmed they were barred from participating in an official capacity (though members may attend as individuals).

We are deeply disappointed at the decision of the American Conservative Union to bar GOProud from participating in CPAC. They are well within their right to do so, but a decision like this will have consequences. For the last two years, GOProud has sought to support CPAC and keep the conservative movement united.

Unfortunately, elements inside and outside of ACU have pushed their own narrow, divisive and sometimes personal agenda. They have done so at the expense of the conservative movement. What is truly sad is that this troubling development takes place at a time when we should be united and focused on defeating Barack Obama.

GOProud has been and will continue to be an outspoken proponent of conservative values and conservative policy. This organization will continue to work to bring conservatives of all stripes together to save this country and defeat the left. Obviously, that work will no longer be done at CPAC, but it will be done.

Wow, GOProud should definitely be invited to CPAC. They’ve got the whole Republican platform down perfectly: “We have no solutions for any of America’s problems except to attack President Obama.”

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #cpac #goproud stories and more


  • Daez

    Work like trying to overthrow the only President in your lifetime that even threw you a crumb.

    While I agree with conservative financial policy 110% because I feel the people that do actual work in this country should not be required to carry those that do not, I am forced to vote Democrat in order to support gay rights.

  • gregger

    Excuse me if I don’t feel sorry for GOProud sickos or their butt buddies, the Log Cabin Republicans. They pander to the nutjobs who want to criminalize LGBT lifestyles, they demonize the the people who actually do something positive for our community, and they refer to the current president as the worst president ever. The President who demanded the repeal of DADT and actually promoted a Gay man to WH social secretary along with declaring June 2011 “Gay Pride Month.” This while having to clean up the mess left behind by the king of deficit spending, war criminal, and total moron, GW Bush.

  • Gary

    GOProud gets kicked to the curb aalllll the time….. nothing new for them….

  • robert in NYC

    And what exactly has the GOP and its Tea Party and Civil Libertarian scumbags done for equality lately, or intend to do? Ron Paul even supports DOMA and claims it’s up to the states to legislate marriage equality or ban it. What a slime-bag, he wants it both ways. Now, let’s see if the GOP and it’s ofshoots allow Chris Barron or Clarke Cooper a place on the platform to address the crowd at at their convention for the 2012 campaign. I guarantee, NOT going to happen. It never has and never will be the party of inclusion if CPAC’s action is anything to go by.

  • o

    @robert in NYC: They let us have pride parades. Aren’t they nice!

  • Shannon1981

    I had hoped this would be a lesson to those ass kissing mama’s boys begging for acceptance from bigots, but, alas, it was not. Sad that they STILL do not realize that CONSERVATIVES. DO. NOT. LIKE. GAY. PEOPLE. Nothing they do or say will change the fact that they are gay; therefore, nothing they do or say will make these people love them. I’d pity them if they didn’t disgust me so much.

  • hf2hvit

    GOPROUD IDIOTS will be like the Jewish Nazis…eventually, they too, went to the showers.

  • Robert in NYC

    Shannon1981, right on! It says something about gay people who vote for a party that thinks they’re not equal to straights in any way shape or form, and who thinks many of us are perverts, pedophiles even and should just not have any rights or equality at all if Michele Bachmann, Pawlenty or Romney occupy the White House. Life will be just fine and dandy for them as long as they pay fewer taxes than the rest of us and fatten their portfolios in the process, that’s all they’re interested in, first and foremost.

    If the shoe was on the other foot and they lost their homes,jobs,life’s savings, investments,health care, who would they turn to? Definitely NOT the government of course. As republicans, including tea party and civil libertarian scumbags, they’d have to decline unemployment benefits, medicaid and handouts from their families and friends, just to prove how fiscally conservative and responsible they are when they’re on the street with nowhere to go but under. Selfish bastards!

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @Shannon1981: I tend to agree. Why try to appease a group that publicly demonizes you? Which is why I know that you, Shannon, feel the same way about muslims and blacks as you do about the GOP. All are groups that publicly, proudly disapprove of or downright slander the gay community, yes? But why is it that gays just cannot accept the fact that MUSLIMS/BLACKS. DO. NOT. LIKE/WOULD. LIKE. TO. KILL. GAY. PEOPLE. ??? This isn’t racism on my part, it isn’t prejudice — it’s factual reality (except, apparantly, in the minds of gay people). Seriously: Why? Why embrace one group that hates you, but condemn another? I’m eager to see your response, but I suspect it will just be more blabber to avoid the true answer: Because the Democrats told me to.

  • tjr101

    Well Boo Hoo, GOPricks get no invitation to this years klan rally. It’s best they put away the hoodies for another year.

  • tjr101

    @Politically Incorrect Thug: Earth to PoliticallyIncorrect, there are black and Muslim gays. The congressional black caucus consistently votes in favor of gay rights. They are Democrats! Please provide links as to your facts otherwise stop expecting people to believe “facts” you pull out of your ass!

  • Fitz

    It’s like when a sub complains about not having their needs met.

  • Shannon1981

    @Politically Incorrect Thug: I don’t do everything Democrats tell me to; in fact, I am very sore at Obama right now for not endorsing marriage equality. However, conservatives are the ones who actively work against us. I am well aware that many black religious types hate the gays. My own flesh and blood falls into that category. I have just as much disdain for them as I do for the rethuglican’ts. However, it is not across the board, and, furthermore, as tjr101 said, the Congressional Black Caucus has been consistently in favor of equality for us.

    Now, why the hell would you condone GOProud’s ass kissing a conference that values the Family Research Council’s attendance? A registered hate group? Hmmmm?

    And it isn’t Muslims who run NOM, FRC, AFA, FOTF,etc. It’s fundamentalist Conservative Christians. Though, honestly, I have huge issues with any of the Big 3 religions, but right now Christianity is the biggest thorn in the side of the cause politically, and therefore the one upon which I concentrate.

  • robert in NYC

    No. 13, Shannon1981, the bulk of NOM’s support comes from the catholic and mormon cults and a lot from the right wing evangelicals. That’s why Margaret Srivastav, a.k.a. Gallagher, refused to obey a recent court order to disclose who her donors are. She claims she’s concerned about their security which is nothing more than a ploy to avoid disclosing the list. Under section 501(c)4 of the IRS non-profit code, she’s supposed to disclose to the public all donations of $1000 or more from individuals and $5000 or more from corporations, the majority of which vote republican.

  • christopher di spirito

    Gay conservatives are idiots.

    Why won’t they open their eyes and see the larger conservative movement holds them in the same disdain they hold every other LGBT person and group? I’m sure uber-moron Christopher Barron, who is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, will be making the rounds to excuse CPAC.

  • robert in NYC

    No. 15…Chris Barron married his boyfriend in DC and up until February of this year, opposed repeal of DADT. Same-sex marriage support is not even on its agenda either, not that important apparently. As long as he’s got his, to hell with the rest of us. Typical republican/civil libertarian selfishness.

  • Shannon1981

    @robert in NYC: Yup. Heard about that. Now, why, again, isn’t she in jail for refusing to obey a court order?

  • robert in NYC

    Shannon1981, not sure why she hasn’t complied. In any case, she could be prosecuted for not obeying the order, often a stiff fine, imprisonment or both. Let’s hope it’s the latter. I’d like to see my own state go after her in the same manner, force her to disclose or throw the book at her.

  • Shannon1981

    @robert in NYC: Religious should not = immune to the law. If she doesn’t obey, I say those in a position to do so should lean on the right people to have her locked up.

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @Shannon1981: Again, I agree with you 100% that Christians are the biggest thorn in the side of gay rights—all one has to do is observe reality to come to this conclusion. However, you claim anti-gay rhetoric is heard “across the board” among Christians . . . but not among blacks and muslims. Really? So, ALL Christians are homophobic? Uh, no. Wrong. Especially since there are so many gay Christians out there. Granted, not all blacks and muslims preach hate toward gays, but you’re wrong if you think you or I would receive a warmer welcome in a mosque than in a church. You might be sore with Obama (and who isn’t?), but your statement reeks of a liberal’s typical all-encompassing talking point.

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @Shannon1981: ps – If you’re referring to Chris Barron when using the pronoun “she,” then don’t bother responding. Anyone who refers to a man as a “she” loses all credibility when it comes to grown-up issues and should go back to their little all-things-gay-all-the-time world.

  • Erik

    GOProud will just have to take their masochism to another venue — perhaps The Saint-at-Large Black Party?

    While others wore leather harnesses and chaps, they could just wear their NObama and Michele Bachmann campaign t-shirts.

    I think everyone would get it, right? lol

  • robert in NYC

    Shannon1981, not sure how it will be enforced. I think equality groups might want to follow it up and find out what NOM is doing about compliance with the order. The court should be doing it but with all legal issues, takes time. But you’re right, no religious group/cult should be exempt from the law or tax-exempt when they’re directly meddling in the political process.

  • Steve

    Am I a bad person for thinking they deserve this?

  • Queer Supremacist

    @Steve: No.

    They tried to reason with unreasonable “people.” They failed. It happens; just ask Neville Chamberlain.

  • Shannon1981

    @Politically Incorrect Thug: I was referring to Maggie Ghallagher. This is a discussion board, not a gay bar. For once I agree with you- such antic do not belong in a grown up conversation on serious issues. However, this is also a snark blog, so there are exceptions to some of those rules.

    @Politically Incorrect Thug: I never said all Christians are anti gay. Nor are all blacks. Nor are all Muslims. Or all ANY group. However, you cannot deny that the groups that are the biggest problem for us are Fundamentalist Christians.

    @robert in NYC: Hopefully Maggie and NOM are called to task in a timely fashion by credible organizations and courts who will make them either comply or pay the price.

  • Josie McCormick

    I honestly have no true concerns if a fellow queer chooses to vote conservative. Their life, not mine (and that is a choice.) However, I do have a problem with the republican party offer nothing in terms of solutions, other than failed policies and this “Obama: the Anti-Christ” mentality. It does remind me a little of the anti-Bush campaigns of the 2000s, yet we have something too truly to go off about. The democrat’s basic dilemma is that they are not democrats, but liberal republicans. Can’t we just have an uber liberal socialist party to help bring the sway of the pendulum back a bit? Personally, I would vote for libertarian candidates, nevertheless, I find too many of them would rather have a free market, rather than a free society. Just my take.

  • N00b

    @Shannon1981: You must see his point though. Fundamentalist Christians (aka someone like Obama, who does NOT support marriage equality) are not all political conservatives (aka Republicans). You can be against Obama and for marriage equality: in fact just by being the latter you are essentially the former.

    And Fundamentalist Christians stand on the same ground as Fundamentalist Muslims, and on the same ground as many Blacks (just go on any Hip Hop website and read comments about Drake’s songs). In fact, an entire predominantly Black country just agreed to make homosexuality a crime. Go to Jamaica and kiss a man, see what happens to you. Go to major US Black cities holding hands with your boyfriend, see how much hatred you get.

    Not all Blacks/Muslims/Christians are like this of course, just like not all people against Obama or who align with Republican sentiment politically and financially are against gay rights. It’s time to stop the hypocrisy and think for ourselves instead of repeating what others in power (Democrats OR Republicans) want us to say.

    Obama is using gays for votes, and nothing else.

  • robert in NYC

    N00b, and if Obama is using gays for votes, what exactly is the GOP offering (includes Tea Party and Civil Libertarian fellow scumbags…ALL republicans when push comes to shove) to get the gay vote? Ron Paul supports both same-sex marriage, state by state, but also supports DOMA, state by state, fucking slime-bag that he is.

  • Ganondorf

    This doesn’t matter. Gay “conservatives” vs gay “liberals” is a peculiar debate engaged in by unimportant people who don’t read. It changes no one’s mind about anything, and gridlock is the inevitable conclusion of any of these worthless “debates” and conversations.

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @Shannon1981: Thanks for clarifying the Maggie issue. And yes, I agree with you yet again: A fundamentalist Christian is bad, and not just for gays—Fundies are bad for EVERYONE.

  • Mr. Enemabag Jones


    You’ve just summed up every comment you’ve written on this blog. That you don’t see the irony in that, demonstrates your self-importance, and tenuous grip on reality.

  • Shannon1981

    @N00b: I pick the lesser of two evils, and the only issues I give a damn abut are gay ones until the ridiculous institutionalized discrimination ends. Yu can either vote for people like Bachmann, who would criminalize our very existence if she could, or you can vote for Obama, who, while he doesn’t want us to get married, at least doesn’t want us fired from jobs, kicked out of churches, or “cured.” You tell me which is worse.

  • Shannon1981

    @Politically Incorrect Thug: You’re welcome. If I had my way, brainwashing people into fundamentalism would be viewed the same as Charlie Manson style cults. Because that is exactly what it is. Socially acceptable indoctrination into dangerous cults.

  • james_from_cambridge

    NOOB=Queer Supremacist=Politically Incorrect Thug. It’s one guy with alternate names. Their tone is EXACTLY the same. He’s part of an interesting little right-wing ploy that one of their biggest websites, Redstate, cooked up. This idiot is following their plan to a T: create alternate names, try to seem like you’re reasonable and actually on the side of whatever website you infiltrate and demagogue against their beliefs once you’ve gained people’s trust. Read this folks, it’s real interesting. Especially read the last paragraph I excerpted here, about how to hijack a thread…like above where the subject at hand was the bigotry of the GOP and Goproud self-hatred, but he made it about Blacks and Muslims.

    The people who regularly consult sites like Gawker or Think Progress or Dailykos and take their liberal drivel as gospel will never be reformed, just as I am sure the folks who regularly consult Redstate, or Townhall, or Human Events will be ever be “reformed” in the eyes of the liberal. However, they are bigger blockheads because unlike the conservative, they refuse to consult and comment on the other side. That is where conservatives- armed with better facts- are better equipped to steer away from these liberal websites, those visitors who are new or unique to those sites. So the best way of combating the liberal netroots is through a 4-point program.

    First, infiltratethe site. For this, you will have to avoid creating screen names like “GoPalinGo” or “Heartlandredstater.” Also, some websites may actually have you wait a week before you are allowed to comment or blog. Perhaps, they are investigating the e-mail address you give them against whether it is used for a conservative website. Be sure to avoid that tendency; if you use, for example, screen name for RedState, make sure you use a yahoo e-mail address for Dailykos, or whatever. Once you are there, the second part of the strategy is to gain their trust. For this, you cannot be too overtly gung-ho conservative in your outlook. Instead, you sort of have to be the voice of a moderate liberal. This will take a lot of acting skill, but it could be done. For example, over at ThinkProgress, they had an article about how the folks in Alabama got what they deserved with the recent spate of tornadoes because their legislators did not believe in global warming. It took all my energies not to reach through the Internet and strangle these kooks, but I responded, “Well, that might be going a little too far…” Along the way, I gained the trust of certain posters on that thread.

    The third step is to move the conversation in the direction you desire. By doing this, you can then form the debate in terms you can win. For example, in the above story, although I said they were going too far in their comments, I moved the conversation somewhat by questioning whether the folks in Alabama would accept Federal funds to rebuild their lives. In other words, the subject was changed from a debate on global warming to one of fiscal responsibility. Once there, you can then highjack the thread. In effect, you have changed the subject and tenor or the conversation and the writer of the original post has lost their ability to moderate the conversation and that creates a free-for-all that gets the conversation far off the original mark. Of course, you will be accused of “threadjacking” or, worse (drumrolls please…) being a “troll.” To this I say, of course you are a troll and you should be proud of it. Embrace your status of being a “troll” on the liberal website and carry it through to its logical conclusion. To put it bluntly: Embrace your inner troll. If they realize what is happening and accuse you of being a troll or such, or if they try to block you and your opinions, remind them of their support for the Fairness Doctrine and their reasoning for it- to ensure that both sides have a say- should allow you to have your say. Force them to practice what they preach.

  • Abirdwillingtobeitself

    @james_from_cambridge: It’s definitely worth reading. One of the things that interests me is that he said “if they realize” what’s happening – as if anyone doesn’t. Another thing is the attempt to make psychopathy seem normal by calling it trolling.

  • james_from_cambridge

    @Abirdwillingtobeitself: Ah yes, this quote here “Once there, you can then highjack the thread. In effect, you have changed the subject and tenor or the conversation and the writer of the original post has lost their ability to moderate the conversation and that creates a free-for-all that gets the conversation far off the original mark. Of course, you will be accused of “threadjacking” or, worse (drumrolls please…) being a “troll.” To this I say, of course you are a troll and you should be proud of it.”

    Shame isn’t something they’re capable of feeling. Watch QueerSupremeRacist and his alter-egos (and some new one he’s going to have to create now) come back with some other lie to try and explain this Redstate article away. I would have so much respect for them if they actually just admitted to being trolls, LOL!

  • Riker

    @Shannon1981: I’ll vote for Karger in the primary. Bachmann only has an outside shot at the nomination and would fail horribly in the general election. I would vote for, in order of preference:

    1. Fred Karger
    2. Pon Raul
    3. Mitt Romney
    4. Barack Obama

  • james_from_cambridge

    @Riker: Wow…that was quick. I thought you’d take some time before coming up with an alternate name QueerSupremeRacist….??

  • tjr101

    @Riker: The first two don’t have a snowballs chance, you’ll however most likely get to vote for Romney who has stated he wants to reinstate DADT!

  • Ganondorf

    @Mr. Enemabag Jones:

    Awww, it’s trying to be people. Lookee, it wants to be people. ha ha ha…you non-americans are funny things.

  • Riker

    @james_from_cambridge: Erm, i’ve been on Queerty with this name for about a year….

    @tjr101: I could be wrong, but wasn’t he the one who said that he would consult with the generals and see what they wanted? It is true that he doesn’t support same-sex marriage (neither does Obama), he’s one of the more progressive/moderate Republican candidates. Romney supported hate crime legislation when he was governor of Massachusetts, and also in 2002 opposed a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment which would have prohibited same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships.

  • xander

    The Log Cabin Republicans at least seem to have had some focus on LGB issues, whereas the GOProud folks come across like frat-pack wanna-be’s. CPAC kept them isolated from the adults’ table during their last convention, it’s no surprise they’re not asked to the next one.

    @Riker : I hope you’re right about Bachmann failing to get close to the nomination. She scares me. Perry could take her and Romney out if, let’s say WHEN he enters the race: he’s got more crossover appeal, appears more rational than MBach and doesn’t have MRom’s LDS baggage. Being Southern~ish helps too!

  • robert in NYC

    No. 40, tjr101, plus Paul supports DOMA and thinks states should decide on marriage equality or banning it. In the end, civil libertarians will vote for a republican when push comes to shove, because at heart, they’re diehard republicans when the going gets tough. If Bachmann gets the nod, probably not, they’ll rally around her, make no mistake about that. Romney also believes in DOMA and you’re right, supports overturning repeal of DADT.

  • N00b

    @james_from_cambridge: So let’s see: two people agreeing with each other must be the same person, and that same person can only be a troll. In other words, every visitor must shut up unless they agree with everyone else.

    Hive mind, conspiracy bullshit, etc. You’re the troll here my friend, at least the rest of us tries to stay on topic. And you need to start learning that not everyone agrees with what you say. Calling them names and/or smearing them with stupid “theories” does not make you any more right. It just makes you look dumb.

  • N00b

    @Shannon1981: You do understand that Bachmann is not the quintessence of conservatism, right? You also get that by allowing groups like LCR and GOProud to seat with them the debate can stop being gay vs non-gay and go back to what it is supposed to be, conservative vs liberal politics/economics, correct?

  • John

    CPAC kicked them to the curb…..of course they did! Now only if Ann Coulter would join the board……oh she did. These idiots invited her!

Comments are closed.