Generational Divide: CPAC Gets High and Gay Married
The most interesting phenomena you will find at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md., isn't the straw poll of potential presidential candidates. It is the sharp divide on social issues between the young and old attendees that may be moving the conservative movement into the 21st century.
"If they want to, fine, but don't shove it down my throat," argued one older CPAC attendee about gay marriage. While many long time conservatives hold the same kind of icky aversion to the thought of two men or two women joining nuptials, the Reason-Rupe poll in June 2014 found that 53 percent of millennials would get behind a candidate who is both socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
"I think it's really unfair to preach a free market and to preach liberty yet at the same time be advocating for laws that tell you who you can and cannot be with in your own bedroom," said one young CPAC attendee.
That push towards individual freedom also extends to legalizing recreational marijuana. CPAC even hosted a debate this year between former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson and New York Republican Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle over legalizing pot.
Run time: 2:50.
Shot and produced by Paul Detrick and Josh Swain. Hosted by Detrick.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
May 3 gay fellows form a marriage?
May 3 straight fellows form a marriage?
May 4 lesbians get married together?
May 2 males and 1 female, as long as they're gay/lesbian, get married together?
May a grandmother marry her daughter and grand daughter?
If not, why not?
Sure. If said marital unions are consensual, why not?
Why not? Show one argument for gay marriage that does not equally apply to polygamy, polyandry or close relative marriages.
You'll find most of the lefties that are supportive of teh ghey marriagez recoil at the thought of polygamy. It's never been principled for most of the left, it's only been about embracing a particular taboo.
Not just lefties this statement is way overloaded; I think it's really unfair
It's not about the free market or liberty. It's about fairness.
If I eliminate domestic surveillance and get the government out of the marriage business but that means that homosexuals can't rely on the state to make people bake them a cake or recognize their union, that's a failure, in their opinion. If I pursue this end with that knowledge beforehand, I'm a bigot.
I'm against marriage, but for marriage equality. Married people (and their children, houses, etc...) should not be subsidized by single people.
Yes to all. Next gotcha attempt.
"May 3 gay fellows form a marriage?"
So long as they invite me over for tasteful brunches and give me tips on improving my home decor.
What relevance does your Redtube browsing history have?
Thanks for sharing anyway.
Zing!
Xhamster has more kinky stuff and xvideos has a wider selection. You can do better than Redtube and it's shitty player
Now that the government owns the web, you will take your redtube and you will like it.
*puts gag ball in mouth and mumbles incoherent protests*
"We may not be a traditional family like the Murphys next door or the lesbian coven across the street. But we are a family, and That Guy understands that."
Don't worry about [blank], Hugh. You let me worry about [blank].
My only regret is that I have...Boneitis.
+3 kajiggers
As long as you've all reached the age of consent, knock yourselves out.
It is a slippery slope, that is what I say.
My first thought was this was a timeline like out of Terminator. The I saw you were going backward from May 4th to May 2nd.
If you are happy and content in your own skin, you don't have to try and force people to accept you.
Why is it that the marriage equality debate always ignores one obvious point? All US citizens are equal under the current law. As long as people meet the requirements of the law, anyone can get married. No individual is treated differently or has different requirements to meet.
What the debate is really about is not equality under the law, but what arbitrary changes should be made based on what is popular.
Instead of advancing the false narrative of marriage equality, which is completely subjective, Libertarians should be looking at solutions that remove government from the equation because there will be no objective standard to follow if procreation is removed as the underpinning of marriage law, and therefore no objective standard to limit any relationship from government sanctioned marriage.
I believe the position proponents such as Reason take is a populist position and has little to do with principle or equality because it advocates to allow only specific changes that are arbitrary and exclusionary of many possible arrangements. Once procreation, and by extension the survival of our species, is removed as the foundation and traditional purpose of marriage, then the objective standard being used to underpin marriage law is gone. At that point, there is no single standard to exclude any relationship from legal recognition that is not arbitrary and discriminatory since it came from man and not nature.
You make 27 Dollar per hour good for you! I make up to 85 Dollar per hour working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around 45 Dollar per hour to 85 Dollar per hour heres a good example of what I'm doing more detail here....
---------------- http://www.jobsfish.com
I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I've been doing,,,,,,
http://www.work-mill.com
"I think it's really unfair to preach a free market and to preach liberty yet at the same time be advocating for laws that tell you who you can and cannot be with in your own bedroom," said one young CPAC attendee.
Is that what the laws say?
I think it's really unfair to preach a free market and to preach liberty yet at the same time be advocating for laws that tell people what's fair and what's not.
The laws do *not*"tell you who you can and cannot be with in your own bedroom" - they say that a same-sex couple has the same legal status as any two unrelated single people. In other words, the government discriminates *in favor* of marriage with tax breaks, testimonial privileges, etc. In his or her relationship with a non-spouse, an individual is treated the same whether there's an erotic relationship with the other individual or not.
But that's just a bit too much nuance for this youth, so he acts like there is some kind of ban on the books.
Well it is much worse than you suggest. In fact a gay couple cannot establish inheritances the way a married couple can because they are in some places not recognized as married. Also if one of a couple is acutely ill the hospital may not recognize visitation rights. We really need laws that get government out of the marriage business.
It's my understanding that, thanks to gays, power of attorney can establish next-of-kin, including inheritances and hospital visitation rights.
I agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. It should get out of the welfare and subsidy business in general. In the meantime, expanding the subsidy makes no sense.
You left out "Mexicans" - no trifecta for you!
They should have had a guy named Martinez do the video.
That might have covered it, yes!
I see that the stoned, homosexual CPAC attendees, like the traditional sort, are funny looking white people with the fashion sense of a mid-1950's insurance broker.
I thought the "mid-1950s insurance broker" look was back? Damnit!
*Runs home to change*
You joke about insurance, but did you ever stop and think about what would happen if, God forbid...
Somalian butt sex roads with a side of Mexican deeps dish abortion.
I thought there were no roadz in Somalia. How did they build an entire Hershey highway?
/confused
Well how do you think they fund them when they are not allowed to have more civilized means of theft?
Selling orphans to libertarians?!
+extra foreskin topping
It is a case of the pot calling the pot, pot. I saw it in a Ma and Pot Kettle movie once.
End times. Roll the credits. Or spend them if you live in the right galaxy.
If you are happy and content in your own skin, you don't have to try and force people to accept you.
I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out.
For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com
my neighbor's step-mother makes $79 an hour on the computer . She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her income was $16877 just working on the computer for a few hours. pop over to this site......
????? http://www.netcash50.com
Why is it that the marriage equality debate always ignores one obvious point? All US citizens are equal under the current law. As long as people meet the requirements of the law, anyone can get married. No individual is treated differently or has different requirements to meet.
What the debate is really about is not equality under the law, but what arbitrary changes should be made based on what is popular.
Instead of advancing the false narrative of marriage equality, which is completely subjective, Libertarians should be looking at solutions that remove government from the equation because there will be no objective standard to follow if procreation is removed as the underpinning of marriage law, and therefore no objective standard to limit any relationship from government sanctioned marriage.
I believe the position proponents such as Reason take is a populist position and has little to do with principle or equality because it advocates to allow only specific changes that are arbitrary and exclusionary of many possible arrangements. Once procreation, and by extension the survival of our species, is removed as the foundation and traditional purpose of marriage, then the objective standard being used to underpin marriage law is gone. At that point, there is no single standard to exclude any relationship from legal recognition that is not arbitrary and discriminatory since it came from man and not nature.
Well I voted Libertarian in 2012. Obamacare lite? What a joke.