The important thing to note is that this is not a matter of disputed beliefs – though there was the generic “they support the homosexual agenda” babbling. The objection was specific: GOProud is a gay organization and their views or policies were irrelevant.

I never saw them actually admit that GOProud was banned because it was gay. They either didn’t choose to say why it was banned, or they pushed some version of the “homosexual agenda” claim. CPAC and the supporters of its ban of GOProud were never honest about it.

That’s a quibble. But really, you’re right in everything you say in the article, including that GOProud was banned because it was a gay group. And especially that GOProud’s value is in pointing up the extreme homophobia in the conservative movement.

I do think they and gaypatriot.net have an additional virtue as well. They let us know the state of mind of gay “Fox News conservatives”. It’s good to keep an eye on people like that.

By the way, Timothy, your article is way too good to remain in its current, poorly edited state.

I suspect that CPAC would be OK with, say, Eve Tushnet co-moderating a panel.

Furthermore, I suspect that when a lot of socially conservative Republicans and conservatives invoke unnamed gay friends who share their values, they’re talking about gay people who have chosen to live a life of celibacy.

I do think there are probably not a very large number of such people, and those that do make such a decision probably tend to be people who don’t want a lot of attention drawn to them.

Please don’t misunderstand this comment as an endorsement of the CPAC folks or their attitudes or their decisions. I just wanted to mention that I’m guessing this is what’s going on — the Heritage Foundations of the world have in mind a kind of gay person (and I do think Eve Tushnet, for instance, counts as “gay”) that is a) almost completely culturally invisible and b) is not really what gay livin’ gay blog readin’ gay folks tend to think of when they think of “gay conservative.”

CPAC isn’t even geared toward fiscal conservatives — it’s the loony bin of fringe conservatives akin to how the Gay Liberation Network is not really a gay rights group but rather carrying the mask of being one to push another agenda.

The problem with conservatives is that a vocal minority is running the PR campaign.