 Good afternoon and welcome to the Cato Institute. My name is David Bose I'm executive vice president of the Institute if there are people out there in the hallway Please know that there are seats down front and in the back and especially along the walls. You just have to Step apart step across some people We're gonna have a very interesting discussion today I'm gonna make just a few remarks to get us started and then I will introduce each of our speakers as They are ready to speak It seems to me that for the past 70 years or so Conservatives at least in the United States have opposed the demands for liberation and equal rights by Jews blacks women and gay people and Now Republicans wonder why they don't get many votes from those groups The good news is that once each struggle for civil rights has been clearly won Conservatives accept it and insist that in fact they never opposed it After a generation of insisting that a mother's place is in the home Conservatives spent 2008 declaring that the right place for a mother of five One of them pregnant and one a newborn with special needs is next door to the Oval Office But the civil rights struggle of our own time is that of gay and lesbian people and Conservatives are still performing their traditional role of opposing it. Is that going to change? Will it change once gay people have achieved all the legal rights that other groups have in their civil rights efforts? In this case at least it seems that British conservatives are ahead of Americans or to be fair are at least in a different place Our speaker today is not even the first openly gay member of a conservative shadow cabinet Yet, we can hardly imagine a John McCain cabinet having an openly gay member There's not even an openly gay Republican member of Congress I'm not even sure there's an openly gay person employed in the entire conservative movement So while conservatives have embraced the equal rights and equal dignity of Jews African Americans and women They have not yet reached that point with gay people Let me move on now to introduce our first speaker Nick Herbert is shadow secretary of state for environment food and and rural affairs in David Cameron's shadow cabinet He's been a member of Parliament since 2005 Before entering Parliament. He led the successful campaign to keep Britain out of the euro Which is probably looking like a better and better decision these days and He was co-founder and director of the think tank reform. Please welcome Nick Herbert. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen I'm delighted to be here at Cato the guardian of true liberalism Thank you for hosting this event And I'm especially honored to be sharing a platform with one of Britain's most valuable exports Andrew Sullivan On the way over I read Andrew's book virtually normal He ends by calling for a new politics with a simple principle that all public discrimination against homosexuals should end and Every right and responsibility enjoyed by heterosexuals should be extended But I also read Henshaw's conservatism in England written before my father was born in 1932 He concludes to Conservatives above all others falls the task of defending the menaced citadel of civilization and Maintaining the eternal sanctity of the moral law Professor Henshaw's misguided Revolutionaries we're not gay rights activists But his clarion call for a faith-based conservatism finds many supporters today So can promoting equality for gay people be compatible with conservatism in Discussing this I'm going to take three things as given and if they're contentious They shouldn't be first Since on most conservative estimates around 5% of the population are attracted to the same sex There are more than three million people in the UK who are gay and 15 million in the United States People often speak of gays as though we are a society apart from the rest living in our own quarter and A few choose to be apart, but most of us don't We live in every city and town. We are businessmen and women We run shops and stack shelves. We labor on farms and in factories We are firefighters and police officers. We save lives in hospitals We fight for our countries and sometimes we die for our countries Some of us are extraordinary, but mostly we are quietly ordinary We are not different and we don't want to be different We're not asking for special treatment. We are United States or British citizens proud of our countries Wanting to play a part in our society and across the world There are millions of us millions of ordinary people millions of voters Second we can't be uninvented Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Our sexuality is a fact It may be repressed, but it cannot be changed Doctors don't try to change a person's color and Healers or politicians shouldn't try to change anyone's sexuality Whether it is given by God or set by nature Homosexuality isn't nurtured by doting mothers or weak fathers It isn't a condition to be cured and it can't be willed away through prayer Third Democracies should subscribe to a fundamental principle that all men are created equal Some claim that the promotion of gay equality has no place in conservatism In fact, many deny that conservatives should be interested in the equality agenda at all It is argued that equality is incompatible with liberty that if men are free they are bound to become unequal But conservatives who want people to become better through their own efforts can never stand by While others are denied that chance Conservatives should always believe that everyone should have an equal chance in life Regardless of any other factors and that they should not be discriminated against As Robert Levy the chairman of this Institute has recently written and I quote Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the direct declaration of independence to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role and no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people end quote Today I want to explain why I believe that Conservatism is not only entirely compatible with the principle of equality between gay and straight people But that such equality is in fact an essential element of modern conservatism I want to explain how my party leader David Cameron has reshaped the conservative party in the United Kingdom How we have developed a progressive conservative agenda to secure important social objectives through conservative means How we have made a commitment to the vital institution of marriage a central part of our program And how we believe that this institution is strengthened not weakened by its extending its ambit to same-sex relationships I'm not here to preach or to interfere in your affairs I'm neither here to tea party nor to go clubbing But I can tell you what happens to a party when it closes the door to sections of our society and is reduced to its core vote It's no fun being in opposition for 13 years And I can tell you what happens when a party opens its doors again and broadens its appeal a Successful political party should be open to all and ought to look something like the country it seeks to govern In recent history the conservative party in Parliament in the UK reflected only a section of our society male white professional gay suit gray suited and straight At the last election of our 193 MPs elected just 17 were women Only one black and two were openly gay if we were truly representative of the country We would have 99 women 16 black or minority ethnic and 10 gay members of Parliament So our party leadership recognized the need to change Change because we're a national party which needs to be able to speak to and speak up for all sections of society in all parts of the Country as David Cameron said on Monday unless you can represent everyone in our country You cannot be a one-nation party Change because we need to reconnect politics with a public who are increasingly Disillusioned with a political class and change because it was the right thing to do to promote an environment where people can succeed and live Without fear regardless of their gender color or sexuality We now have more female candidates more black and minority ethnic candidates and more gay candidates Fighting at the next election. In fact if we secure a majority in the House of Commons of just one seat at the election Which will be held in the United Kingdom within a hundred days We are likely to have more openly gay MPs on our benches than the Labour Party The Conservative Party leadership was not alone in recognizing the need to change gay candidates have been selected by local Party members not imposed by the leadership I an openly gay man was selected before the last election by my local party voted for by grassroots Conservatives and I've been promoted on merit. I'm one of two conservative MPs who have taken out a civil partnership Thanks to legislation which to their credit the current Labour government introduced But which the Conservative Party supported I led our party support for a new law To prevent the incitement of hatred against gay people Subject to our concern that temperate comment should never be criminalized and our party leader David Cameron has publicly Apologized for section 28 Legislation introduced by a previous conservative government which effectively Prohibited the teaching of the validity of gay relationships in schools a law which was deeply unpopular Not just amongst gay people but with those who saw it as a divisive and unpleasant sign of state intolerance We needed to say sorry for a stance that was wrong and we showed that as a party We were willing to admit mistakes and set a new course and I believe we are stronger for that In his first speech to the Conservative Conference as leader of the party a major event Which brings together party activists from across the country David Cameron said something extraordinary Defying the critics who claimed that party leaders could no longer express a moral preference for the institution He spoke of the importance of commitment and marriage as the bedrock of our society But then he added and by the way It means something whether you're a man and a woman a woman and a woman or a man and another man And when he said these words the delegates applauded not a half-hearted ripple of applause But a spontaneous burst of approbation and at that moment We knew that the Conservative Party and British politics had changed David Cameron has put marriage at the center of our prospectus for the next election Arguing that society is broken that that we need to recognize the importance of marriage in providing a stable environment in which to raise children But in supporting marriage he has not done so in such a way as to denigrate or even exclude gay people In fact the opposite because we've recognized that commitment and stability are important in all relationships I appreciate the view Held by some on a strict reading of their faith that marriage is a unique arrangement Which is only available to a man and a woman and we should never dictate to religious Organizations who are doing no harm that they should in their own rights or places of worship Depart from their sincerely held beliefs But in the UK we created in law a civil union for heterosexual couples specifically devoid of any religious ceremony and And significance for those who do not wish to marry in church So what religious grounds could there be for opposing the extension of a secular? Institution to gay couples through the introduction of civil partnerships in 2005 and why stand against the extension of a civil institution which demands a public declaration of commitment and stability Those who argue against legal recognition for gay partnerships often claim that many gay people have promiscuous lifestyles But there are few social incentives of the kind which conservatives should naturally embrace for gay people to Embrace commitment. There's little social support no institutions to encourage fidelity or monogamy and Precious little religious or moral outreach to guide gay people into what may be seen as more virtuous living So it's right to recognize commitment in gay partnerships in the same way We should reject discrimination against gay couples who wish to adopt. I believe that the best parental arrangements are represented by a good father and a good mother and children should never be treated as some kind of high-value consumer good But this ideal of a loving and present father and mother together is often not realized So we should not seek to prevent adoption by same-sex couples who may offer a love and stability That is absent from too many homes We should not say that whatever their talents Despite the contributions they can make there are things that people may not do simply because of their sexuality In the UK we've allowed gays to serve openly in our military for ten years No one no one can credibly claim that our troops effectiveness Serving alongside US forces in Afghanistan has been compromised by this policy To bar people from making the most profound commitment to their nation or to ask them to live their lives dishonestly by not telling is something no conservative should support as Israel hardly a country which goes in for soft defense has understood and in The words of Barry Goldwater, you don't have to be straight to be in the military. You just have to be able to shoot straight. I Don't believe that Conservatism should be a closed membership club We must be open to everyone because we believe that everyone should have a chance Conservatism at its most powerful has been always been a uniting creed We're conservative because we believe in strong defense on the nation state We're conservative because we believe in responsibility and justice We're conservative because we want to strengthen society and limit government We're conservative because we're skeptical about big government and have faith in our institutions and families Since disraeli spoke of one nation We have always understood the importance of maintaining a strong society And we have never confused that goal with faith in big government or state action The progressive conservatism which David Cameron has espoused is in the true one nation tradition It's about using radical conservative philosophy politics and policy to serve truly progressive goals It's about fostering local democracy Engagement and accountability by returning power to town halls neighborhoods and individuals It's about pursuing a family agenda that lets parents take responsibility for their children's education Allowing them to set up their own schools so that we can give everyone a fair chance in life It's about developing bold approaches to tackling poverty and inequality in all its forms Engaging more actively with a voluntary sector and encouraging a revolution in social responsibility And it's about recognizing that there is such a thing as society. It's not just the same thing as the state If we stand against equality of opportunity which should be an article of faith for the right It becomes the preserve of the left warped into an agenda of state interference targets and central control When it should be about getting out of people's way and letting them advance In the UK all three major political parties are now assuring gay people that it's safe to vote for them Typically far from taking pleasure in this new consensus. The left has greeted it with dismay For over a decade. They've sought to build a client state where groups are beholden to their generosity And now they want to open up clear pink water between themselves and the conservative party There's an election coming and it suits our opponents to argue that we haven't changed But we self-evidently have changed. I suppose in a small way my presence here is evidence of that The truth is that there are millions of people who we drove away But who share our values and want to join us Gay people are not the property of the left nor of any party They are not an interest group or a political commodity to be traded. They are not vessels for votes Gay people are motivated by the same issues as any other voter They'll vote for the political party which best sits with their views so long as that party doesn't make itself taboo For the modern conservative party Embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon nor an agenda which can be reversed We know that we've got further to go to modernize our party And if we form the next government we intend to entrench the progress made on gay equality and to move the agenda forward If there's a need for new laws, we'll consider them But we will also understand where we should give a lead and where there is a need for a law Conservatives should never leap to legislate So we will show leadership in demanding action to tackle homophobic abuse in sport Where behavior and role models can exert such a powerful influence on young people Just as we should demand action against all abusive behavior on the playing fields We will take the strongest stand against the homophobic bullying of children in schools as we should take a stand against all bullying And we will not allow our support for faith schools to undermine that stand We will insist on action against hate crime where gay people are the victims as we should insist on action Against all hate crimes which incite fear and violence We will speak out when countries abuse the human rights of gay people as we should speak out when any human rights are abused None of these areas necessarily require new laws But they do require a clear-sighted and determined conviction about the importance of political leadership in promoting human dignity and equality When I was born in 1963 homosexual conduct was a crime I and millions of others are free to be who we are now Because of the courage of political leaders who saw that this prohibition was wrong I and thousands of others are free to enter into a civil partnership now Because of the courage of politicians who saw that to exclude us from making that commitment was wrong And the need for this leadership has not gone away So let us be clear about the kind of society we want to build One where a child can go to school without being bullied because of his or her sexuality Where people can be honest with their friends and families and employers and not live a lie Where the terraces at football games don't ring with homophobic abuse Where a public debt declaration of lifelong commitment to another person can be made by anyone Where communities are safe and no one is fearful because of who they are Where anyone can serve their country without being asked who it is they love Where no one is held back and opportunity is available to all and where the prime minister of the United Kingdom Or the president of the United States could just as easily be gay as black. Thank you Thank you, Nick. It's rather gutsy of a Brit to make a tea party joke in the United States But the the oppressive government we worry about today is the one on this side of the Atlantic Our second speaker today Andrew Sullivan is best known as one of the first and one of the most controversial political bloggers Judging by the reactions I got when I sent out the invitation to this meeting controversial seems to be putting it mildly Of course before the blogging he was the editor of the New Republic where he won three national magazine awards and one editor of the year award He holds a PhD from Harvard and his books include virtually normal and argument about homosexuality and The conservative soul how we lost it how to get it back. Please welcome Andrew Sullivan Thank you very much, David and thank you Kato for Making this possible To be quite honest, I'm My breath is still taken away by Nick's speech I'm sure the many of you are also somewhat reeling from it. It feels like water in a desert It feels like the truth and for those of us Who have been gay and also understand ourselves in favor of all the things that Nick has said individual? Responsibility individual freedom limited government the family Personal responsibility who have been cast out as openly gay people from the conservative movement and demonized by the Republican Party Hear these words from a conservative leader and Feel a great emotion Because the struggle in this country has been extremely difficult and emotional and tough on all of us in Some ways it is so ironic that in America gay conservatism was ahead of Britain a long time ago The arguments the conservative arguments for gay marriage the conservative arguments for the ability of Patriotic Americans to serve their country without being persecuted or outed or demonized by their own government was actually innovated in the United States before the United Kingdom in the 1990s those of us who were openly gay and conservative Faced unbelievable hostility from the gay left We were targeted my book virtually normal was picketed by gay groups as I Took it around the country There was a group called the lesbian Avengers you had my face in crosshairs on a placard in Front of a bookstore in Chicago Many people in this room remember those days We were called homo cons by the gay left We were smeared But we stood up and defended ourselves Because we believed in the principles that we still believe in And those principles are actually slightly to the right of unique I'm actually more of a thatcherite than a one-nation Tory. I actually disagree with all hate crimes legislation in Virtually normal. I even opposed employment and discrimination laws I've since changed my mind on that simply because The abstract theoretical argument I was making has been rendered moot. I think by the simple facts of our politics But I remain an implacable foe of hate crimes laws And I also remain because I am a conservative in Favour of marriage rights rather than civil partnerships because I believe the family is important and Because I believe the gay people are members integral members of our own families and we deserve not to be cast out of them or Segregated from them as we grow older. I also believe as Nick has said that it is simply a fact a fact that there is no necessary connection between Person and the gender to whom one is emotionally and sexually attracted and one's political viewpoint I Do not see a connection between being gay and whether you're in favor of the Iraq war I Simply do not see a connection between being gay and whether you believe in a carbon tax rather than cap and trade I simply see no connection Between sexual orientation and a view of the state that is limited and a view of the state that is socialistic I Became a conservative because I grew up in a socialist country One in which I saw socialism destroy and undermine the spirit of enterprise of confidence of growth and of equality of opportunity under the awful stultifying embrace of equality of outcome I Was in 1981 a proud member in my own high school Of wearing a Reagan 80 button Which was not very popular at the time My record as a conservative even though I am now called a left liberal by the Republican Party is Absolutely solid I'm also of course a Tory oak shot Ian more than a American Straussian Are those the options? At some very deep level yes Both very deep and very high Especially with the oak shot Ian's I Haven't changed I Know that many of my fellow gay conservatives and libertarians haven't changed I know that we can occasionally differ on The general choices between us and I've always been a Tory not a Republican Which means that I think that for example is perfectly possible to support a democratic president from time to time if one believes that he Genuinely represents a more conservative traditionally conservative position than the radical Republicanism that we have seen grown in this country So why have we come this far? Why is this such a bitter? Angry hateful Brutalizing debate Why have we been subjected and are being subjected by the base of the Republican Party to the most? base obliquely Why when an openly gay? Republican Jim Colby stood up at a Republican convention Did an entire delegation turn around and face the other way? Why have we been subjected? by Carl Roe of and other manipulators to Clearly homophobic campaigns designed to play on fear designed To actually exploit some of the worst things in human nature Deciding that a minority of people who are two or three percent of the country I think fewer than Nick does see I am to the right of Nick in some ways Somehow represent a threat To the 97% to such an extent That they were prepared and the president of the United States did endorse an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permanently enshrine gay people as second-class citizens It has not simply been that the Republican Party has stayed still while the Tory party has moved forward It is the Republican Party has good lent and moved and aggressively accelerated a Direction against gay people there were once openly gay members of Congress Who were Republicans there are none anymore the campaigns that are being run out there and have been used are viciously homophobic The the campaign by by Rubio now in Florida against Charlie Christ is about the most disgustingly homophobic I've seen in my life The reason for this is quite simple and it's what I've tried to explain in my book the conservative soul The Republican Party is no longer a political party. It is a religious organization whose fundamental beliefs are in religious authority fundamentalist truth and obedience to a supreme and important leader called the president who has uncontrolled power within our constitution I Want to finish by simply saying this and reiterating what Nick has said gay people in this country despite all of this Despite an atmosphere in which we were abused despite an atmosphere in which Carl Rove when challenged about why he was doing this Simply said it's about the numbers. There are more of them than of you It's about a Republican Party whose soul has been corrupted by power and by a false understanding of what religious faith is about and When I see how gay people Have served their country Have lost life and limb are today Out there in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world fighting for us and our freedoms Only to be treated as subhuman by their own governments Even to be treated the kind of rhetoric we saw in the Senate only recently It saddens and grieves me as it should any decent person I Also want to say that the arguments that I've made and made now for 20 years in favor of marriage equality Were not ever ever ever ever meant To be in any way an attack upon the family. I Cherish the family. I love the family. I love the heterosexual family I revere heterosexual marriage like so many other gay people and when my own family and my husband's family came together and our mothers Took us up the aisle together And our nieces and nephews flower girls and ring bearers We're able to unite two families and Celebrate our commitment to one another for the rest of our lives and we mean it It was a profoundly integrating beautiful moving and Indescribable experience To have grown up as a kid and the first thing you know when you realize you're gay The first thing people used to know in my generation was that you would never be able to have what your parents had There was something so deeply wrong with you That you couldn't even be a part of your own family That your brothers and sisters looked forward to that special day The most important day of your life. They told us That's what I was brought up to believe because love is more important in career and money That when we were told as kids and we figured out we were gay and we knew that that could never happen to us For nothing. We had ever done The psychic wound and pain that it inflicts and still inflicts every day on young children Distorts the psyche warps the soul destroys the spirit and In that moment when we got married. I have never been prouder of my two families My mother-in-law and father-in-law From michigan My mother-in-law worked for 30 years as a school bus driver in michigan Al-Qaeda could not defeat her in a second She brought a caravan Of goods and food to support us my own mother The devoutest of catholics I brought up Loving deeply loving my church and believing in my faith And trusting the hierarchy of my church And serving as an altar boy And reading theology As a catholic in england Where it wasn't that easy to stand up for one's own faith in a culture To have that institution also wage a cruel And really abusive war On gay people was also something that It is hard to describe But we have withstood it In this country those of us who proudly call ourselves gay conservatives Have struggled against the gay left And now we are struggling against the far republican right Which is now the republican party But in that moment When we got married None of that mattered Because after all of this after all of politics We're human beings and our love endures and our marriage is a real Regardless of law Regardless of politics And that is in the end what keeps us going Because we know we're right And we know that god loves us And we know that as conservatives We have fought the good fight Against forces other people don't begin to understand Thank you very much, Andrew. And now for something completely different Our final speaker tonight today Maggie Gallagher is president of the national organization for marriage and of the institute for marriage and public policy Maggie is a nationally syndicated columnist the author of three books on marriage Including most recently with university of chicago professor linda wait the case for marriage Why married people are happier healthier and better off financially And one of the most prominent voices in opposition to same sex marriage. Please welcome Maggie Gallagher Well, thank you. I I should say off the start that I didn't come here to debate same sex marriage I'll issue an open invitation to come back if that would be Uh, I do appreciate being asked to be part of this conversation and I thought kind of hard about where Given where the cato institute is and where I am on the american political landscape how I could make A contribution to this conversation I do want to say Nick First of all, thank you for coming all this way in the middle of an election season I do know openly gay people who've worked for my organization I'm not going to out them here because I think it may make it hard for them to get a date But I do believe I do understand the weird thing you know from my position Is that gay people are not a monolithic bloc Not even on gay marriage that there are gay people who believe many different things And those who want to come and work with me to protect marriage as a union of husband and wife Are welcome I also feel like I should apologize I do think this is the question on the table is is there a place for gay people in the american conservative movement And I feel strange that I'm here at cato kind of representing american conservatism in in some sense with a a british conservative And I don't want to say that I accept that andrew is a conservative But he is the very small contingent of pro obama conservatives at this point, right? So I know that I'm not the best person really to speak to the broader question of the american conservative movement before a cato audience Accepted like andrew. I'm actually a pre reagan conservative. We're the probably the youngest people In america who can say that and when I joined the conservative movement I was a libertarian And I believed that joining becoming a conservative meant that you would likely never have any influence in major institutions in american politics So not only the strange ride of gay marriage But andrew probably also shares with me that sense that there is something called a conservative movement It is important in american politics and in other ways is an extraordinary achievement of american politics I don't know of many people. Here's the problem. I don't know of many american conservatives Who look at great britain and say we wish american politics were generally more like that Right. I mean I don't with all due respect. I'm not here to say what a british conservative should believe But it seems to me That america remains a unique place for the protection of liberty For classical liberalism, which I share and that the disputes we are having over gay marriage in particular Are disputes within a family that we need to have Okay It's very hard to make the argument here that nick did that for political reasons We need to do this and you'll notice that andrew didn't make that argument If a political party should look like the country Somewhere between 55 to 60 of americans even as they support gay rights Think this marriage thing is something else gay marriage is not right The most recent gallup poll if you ask americans whether gay marriage would be good for the country or hurt the country 48 percent say it will make the country worse off 13 percent say it will make america better off So if we're going to have an argument about incorporating gay marriage into the heart of american conservatism It simply can't be about how it's politically necessary that i mean i i don't know how many of you would disagree with me Maybe down the road. Maybe after the supreme court rules You know when i first looked at this question, which i did not treat as a question about gay marriage I mean i had a problem understanding what the question is because it you know having been in the conservative movement Back when we never thought we'd ever have any power influence and we couldn't take any respectable job I'm highly aware that there've always been gay conservatives There's always been gay people in the conservative movement a political movement is not a church It's not about purity where we all believe all the same things It's a coalition of people who believe that they can achieve more good for the country working together Then as some people decide in the end that their core values cause them to break with this big loose coalition so The question underlying question seems to be Do we read social conservatism out of the conservative movement or to put it in a more positive frame How do we reconcile a movement for gay rights? With the large chunk of traditional social conservatives that are part of the movement of the conservative movement I don't think that nyx solution is going to work in america in any foreseeable future I mean i don't i think it asks Of social conservatives that they cease to exist and cease to be who they are If there is a way for us to stay together You know, it's going to have to be uh, uh, it's going to have to be a new and I think uniquely american development Andrew perceives and I know a lot of people probably a lot of them in this room perceive the problem as the incredible aggression on the part of the republican party on gay issues I translated in that my head I mean what has happened in just a few years in my lifetime Is that the idea that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife Is now experienced by many gay rights people gay people As angry hateful and aggressive We don't experience it that way right we this is the way it's always been we believe it's important We're out there using the democratic process our core civil rights to fight for something we think is true And it saddens me I accept it that people now hear this this language in itself If I went on the radio in Maine and I said Marriage unions of husbands and wife really are special They deserve their unique status because these are the only kinds of unions that can make new life and connect those children in love To their mother and father and the radio announcer who I don't think was gay. I think it was a white liberal Turned to me and said I can't believe I'm hearing such bigotry So I accept now that we live in a divided America where words that would once be thought not angry or hateful or aggressive But kind of beautiful even if you disagree Are heard by an increasing number of americans as angry divisive and aggressive and denouncing of gays I don't know what to do about it except to name the problem in the hopes That may be being americans. We can work out Something different I think nick also asked a key question. Let me just tell you where I think the deep conflicts between gay rights and American conservatism lie He asked the question Can promoting equality for gay people be compatible with conservatism? I think the answer if that is the question the answer is it's very difficult The problem from my point of view and I do think it would it's an intellectual contribution that people who disagree with me can wrestle with Is that if gay rights are understood as liberty interests and rights, they are extremely compatible with american conservatism But equality rights and arguments lead to the expansion of government power To repress and stigmatize and marginalize Those who advocate for and institutionalize around ideas that are contrary to basic democratic norms of equality Hence nick is saying that the government should be involved in the schools in the sports arenas In faith schools. Did you hear that as well as in the family? And I don't know if he would promote that but in kebek. They're now arguing that anti homophobia Should be used in every two the government should be combating homophobia Not just violence or bullying or harassment, but objections to homosexuality In every institution in society It is very hard to make that compatible with the vision of american conservatism We are in a city right now where our church's Catholic charities has just announced that it must get out of the foster care and adoption business It's not about whether gay people can adopt they can adopt here It's about whether you can run one christian adoption agency Right that will not do gay adoptions because it's contrary to their vision of the best thing for children And the answer in the dc city council when the church asked for religious liberty exemptions Was no this would be accommodating and tolerating and promoting bigotry and we're not going to do it There will be gay conservatives like andrew who say well, I don't really support that But because the heart of the movement towards equality drives in this direction You know, we're going to have to really work very hard A lot of I work very directly on the gay marriage movement, and I will tell you It's not scaremongering People are scared Okay I know that it's very hard for gay people given the what you've experienced in america And I always told jonathan roush our people are wussies, right? I get it But people are waking up in america where suddenly their deepest core moral convictions They're being told are the moral and should be the legal equivalent of racism It's pretty striking and people are pretty scared Whether we can move beyond that Situation and I actually believe we can because I do think america is different But it's going we're going to have to decide that we want to do it I mean both sides are going to have to decide that we want in america where gay rights are about liberty And not in america where gay rights are used as a club to move through institutions To repress moral disagreement civilly expressed Okay, because otherwise we're creating an america where you cannot be a good christian In the traditional sense and a good citizen That's a very hard place for a country where you know 85 percent of americans are christians and about 40 45 percent show up in church Great britain is not a model for me in this Because i'll tell you what you probably don't hear about this is again has to do with information networks I hear about the catholic principal of a school in great britain Who was told he could not fire a principal who entered a gay civil union And what they said in great britain is we believe in religious liberty. We have religious liberty If you were if you were the religion teacher, he could be fired But being the principal of catholic school has nothing to do with representing the catholic faith or doctrine You probably don't know about the anglican bishop Who was fined a hundred thousand pounds because he refused to hire an openly actively proudly gay Youth minister in his diocese, right? The sky didn't fall the government does that, right? You probably don't know about the canadian charity It's an evangelical charity. They run developmental homes homes for developmentally disabled adults Evangelicals i mean i'm roman catholic. They're they're different. Okay, so they their vision of who Counts as an evangelical who they want to hire includes a very long morals clause and you're not supposed to drink You're not supposed to use pornography No sex at all except within the context of a heterosexual marriage an opposite sex marriage And the government of canada stepped in and one of one of their employees Decided that she preferred to be in a civil union with a or a mayor. I'm not she had a partner who was a woman And she was let go and she sued And the canadian government not only said that she has to be rehired But this is the touch the sort of the orwellian touch that the christian organization must submit a reeducation plan for all of its employees You know explaining what What bigotry is in the canadian context? so um I appreciate Where andrew is coming from and i'm here today only in the hopes that some sort of honest revelation Of not only our hopes but our fears and our concerns in some way that i cannot see right now Can lead down the road to a better place than the place that great britain has headed. Thank you Thank you maggie. All right, we're going to open this up to questions and discussion now We will ask you to raise your hand and we will bring microphones around I am going to take the moderators prerogative to ask the first question because it was posed to me A couple dozen times this week and that's a question for andrew Andrew the last time you were at this podium. I think you were discussing your book on conservatism and I ask you then if you weren't really more of a classical liberal than a conservative and listening to your Moving an eloquent speech today Um, I might still raise that question but Can you be either a conservative or a classical liberal and support? Not just president obama, but His vast number of expansions of government That's an utterly irrelevant question to this conversation and I won't answer it I'm happy to answer it at some other level, but it's so utterly unrelated to the subject we're talking about That I think it's a preposterous question. I mean, I'm very happy to debate why I think Obama is actually on many central issues Better than the alternative, but I'm not here here today to talk about my philosophy about conservatism or The fusionism between classical liberalism and conservatism or what oak shot would understand as the position of a trimmer In a good sense in the halifax sense of conservatism. So I regard that question as absolutely preposterous and irrelevant All right, well, I can I'll tell all the people who ask it Uh, all right, we'll take a question email me and I will answer them in detail right there Hi, I'm rachel venetia an intern at the cato institute And I was wondering about particularly about herbert's comment about adoption He said let's see I believe that the best parental arrangements are represented by a good father and a good mother And children should never be treated as some kind of high value consumer good But this ideal of a loving and present father and mother is often not realized So we should not seek to prevent adoption by same-sex couples And I was wondering this seems to imply to me that you think that The state should first try to seek a loving mother and father And then if none can be found then they should resort to allowing same-sex couples to adopt And I was wondering if this is what you are trying to say Um, I'm also interested in mrs. Gallagher's response to this as well as mr. Sullivan's Also, I was wondering particularly Um with miss one question at a time. Okay One question regarding foster foster children being adopted by homosexuals Yeah, no, I wasn't trying to um suggest that um gay couples who want to adopt should kind of take their place in a line behind heterosexual couples the truth is that That there is um, you know a huge shortage of people who want to adopt and uh, I don't think that we should You know deny the opportunity of children to be brought up in a stable environment And I believe that that stable and loving environment can be represented by a gay couple, uh, but I also wanted to be Kind of honest about what what I think Actually, ultimately are the best arrangements for a child, which is which is that they should be Brought up by a loving mother and a loving father. I thought I happen personally to think that that is ideally the best arrangement, um, that's a kind of An indication perhaps of an element of social conservatism Uh in in my view, but I in believing that don't think that it's proper to stand in the way Of a gay couple who may well uh of Just as good an upbringing for for children and that love and stability and the real problem we have In our society back in the uk is a broken homes Is of children who grow up without love and without stability and and we should be focused on that Anybody else want to okay take another question Yes, right here George Mason University This question for nick but others may want to comment on it You state that we are not asking for special treatment Could you say more about therefore your view on hate crimes legislation? Which gives a different penalty for the same crime? Whether it's aimed at a gay person or a straight person because I think there's a contradiction between those two things Yeah, um, I I give a long speech about hate crime last year which uh in which I tried to examine the dilemma which I think many of us feel about the on the one hand a concern about the intrusion potential intrusion of the state uh into uh Free speech and free expression And on the other hand the particular need which I think exists in relation to Some minorities who can fool victim to hateful expressions of violence intent and so on and I think that that that what makes hate crime special Is that um it can uh incite fear Not just in on the part of the individual and the victim but actually in the whole community I mean that is I think the definition of what makes heart hate crime Special the way it can make a whole community feel victimized I think we need to constrain the operation of hate crime in this sphere carefully so as to ensure That for instance in relation to an offense of inciting hatred against gay people. We don't uh outlaw Temporate comment even if it's comment that we don't like That shouldn't form full part of if you like the criminal Sphere so In in saying that I don't want Gay people to have special treatment. What I mean by that is I want gay people to Be able to be in their communities and feel as safe as anybody else And I think that if you have a system which can allow Expressions of kind of violent intent to run unchecked Against those people. I don't think they are being treated in in the same way So I do think there is a place for carefully drawn but nevertheless effective Hate hate crime legislation to send particular signals that We should we we should we should never victimize people because of who they are Andrew my view is this is a repellent attack upon individual liberty and freedom of thought and I have consistently held this and been Targeted with a lot of hatred by the gay community for saying so And this is an occasion to say that Maggie did not give an attack on or critique of gay conservatism She created a straw man of gay leftism, which many of us have fought We don't believe in coercing people's thoughts many people in this room and some of them are liberals too Have strongly resisted all those tendencies within the gay movement We do not we strongly firmly passionately believe in religious liberty However, if a religious grouping wants to take government money my taxpayers money and other people's money If they want to do that Um, and then actively discriminate against people civil people in employment, then it seems to me Uh, they have a choice to make take the money From the government or remain independent and free. Let me also make one other point about the people feeling scared Because their religious convictions are being violated. The southern baptist convention was founded Founded to defend slavery on grounds of religious conviction When interracial marriage was proposed getting rid of it in this country vast numbers of christians Believed it was a violation of their religious faith They should have to live among or tolerate This obvious abomination which they regarded as a religious truth These are facts What is the difference? Yes, they were terrified. They were so terrified. They lynched black men their fear is not an argument And basing an argument about civil politics on religious fear Is nothing to do with conservatism whatsoever. It has to do with fundamentalist intolerance well I'm not going to be baited in by andrew into pretending that I made an argument about gay marriage when I didn't Uh, and I'm not going to I I would just point out what what Andrew describes as a straw man Is the reality of where the law is going? Okay, it's the reality that you cannot run A christ a catholic charities cannot run adoption services in the district of columbia or massachusetts Now i'm not entirely sure no actually in massachusetts. You're wrong. It's a felony to run an adoption Washington dc in massachusetts It's a felony to run an adoption agency without a license They will not give you a license unless you agree to place children in a non discriminatory discriminatory ray With gay couples, but in dc where you're campaigning. Is that true? There well the details of dc. I will find out shortly for you, but the whether or not there know them No, I don't know them right now, but you just actually pronounced on them Yes, I did pronounce the truth that the catholic church that can I speak a minute? You know this is because talking about hearing talk about straw Okay, now you're insulting and I'm trying really hard to make a contribution in an alien art Now andrew clearly thinks I have nothing to say worthy of value All I'm going to say is it doesn't matter whether andrew sullivan thinks that there shouldn't be hate crimes and there shouldn't be There should be better religious liberty protections the point i'm making is that equality and Gay rights as a liberty right is a different proposition From using the government to enforce a new ideal of gay equality, which if andrew didn't support I clearly hear nick nick herbert support So yes, I do believe there's a place for gay people in the conservative movement I am not attempting to read them out the question is whether andrew can see a place for the 40 to 60 percent of americans who do see A a a big looming conflict Particularly on the marriage issue even as in fact they want to live in america where gay people are not afraid Well, let me make a simple counter argument about and it's a catholic one Which is the divorce In the catholic church is clearly barred I'm gonna come back. I'm gonna tell you andrew I will come back to kato or any place and debate gay marriage with you Which we haven't done in five years, but I have you haven't heard my argument about marriage That's not what i'm talking about right now I just want to make the point if I may that um That civil divorce is the law of the land in almost in every state of this country. There's even no fault divorce The catholic church is not demanding And that itself is a violation of the catholic church's understanding of marriage The catholic church is not denying Is not shutting down it's uh It's organizations because divorced people or remarried people might be employed. There is a double standard here If the catholic church were consistent on this if it treated divorced people the way it treats gay people Who are I might add in the question of marriage in exactly the same situation divorced and remarried Then I think it would not be subject to the suspicion of animus But I think the suspicion of animus is perfectly well justified When when there's such a glaring inconsistency, you know Actually, I know the bishops are very concerned in that point and they're taking steps to bring the the positions in line So perhaps that will be a cleansing effect of this law on catholic institutions But none of that changes the reality that I will guarantee you if you just walk into america and say you think marriage Is a husband and wife you're going to be suspected of animus And there's going to be a set of people probably not not andrew Who will try to Hurt you if they can in a variety of ways and we gay conservators will fight them every inch of the way And we're happy to join you with on that. Okay in some ways I certainly don't want to to comment on on on on the laws which have been being framed at the state or federal level in In this country, but I can just tell you what? The house of commons decided in the uk about adoption, which is exactly consistent with what I think was being discussed Which is which is that in relation to adoption Where organizations are in receipt of public money including faith-based organizations, then they have to be non-discriminatory But where they are not in receipt of public money, then they can continue To pursue their policy in relation to Adoption according to their conscience, and I think we have to be very careful about interfering In the sphere of conscience or or discretion on the part of religious organizations We can't have an absolute bar on it because of situations in which The normal exercise of some kind of religious belief could do sometimes intended to do Real harm, but we need to be immensely cautious about it and in another Chamber of our parliament, I you know cite the house of lords unelected chamber with some Caution in the united states of america But nevertheless that the house of lords recently rejected an attempt By by the british government to demand in the current equality bill, which is being discussed before parliament that religious organizations should employ people Including people of a sexual orientation, which their conscience would demand that they they could not would not be compatible with their role in that religious organization The kind of thing that that magi was expressing an objection to and I think that that rejection by the house of lords of that Proposal was absolutely right because it was an unwarranted Interference in the exercise of conscience and discretion by that religious organization, which did not do harm I just want to say that briefly when the government gets big enough and large enough Being excluded from government benefits Does actually I think raise questions liberty questions for the people who are concerned with liberty and pluralism How you resolve that depends on how strongly you believe That these organizations are evil bigots and discriminators for their views and how much you can say even if you don't agree with them You can see that people of goodwill might have that point of view and therefore We don't want to exclude them or in in in ways from the public square It's not which is a statement that if you lack a white you if a private institution does not want suck at the government's teat It's somehow being victimized. I don't know how that is a conservative or libertarian idea at all Okay, next question behind the camera there Get this one James Kertrick with the new republic. I should say at the outset that I was one of the people who asked david Why indra was here merely because andrew you yourself have said that you're no longer a part of the conservative movement So I think the more salient fact is that in the last presidential election 28 percent of gay identified voters voted for the mccain palin ticket The actual number of gay people who voted for the mccain palin ticket was probably significantly higher Because i'm assuming a lot of gay people aren't telling pollsters and exit polls that they're gay So we're talking maybe 35 to 40 percent As a as a guesstimate of gay people are voting for the republican party So I don't think you speak for gay conservatives on this issue Um of where the republican party is and I think that's the more salient fact the fact that a third of gay voters are voting GOP I think that answers the question Post to us today and in terms of the future Um, it's just a matter of whether or not those gay conservatives are going to fight for their place in the movement Um, so i'm just curious as to the thoughts of the of the people on the panel to that fact well, um, I would say that I've been very clear and try written a book which I urge if people really think I want to understand what I mean by conservatism I've written a book called the conservative soul Um, I've started oak shot. I've studied hayek. I have studied Strauss Um, I think I know a little bit more about it than jayme kerchuk Uh, to be honest, uh And I do not believe that conservative movement as it now exists in america has a place for a conservative like me But I do refuse to give up The term conservative because it's something that I believe in For example 73 of republicans today in a latest poll So they would like to ban openly gay people from teaching in public high schools In 1978 ronald reagan famously opposed the briggs initiative in california, which was to do such a thing I don't think that I am no longer a conservative because I support ronald reagan's position and not the bigots that now control the republican party And I think that you're right But this isn't a debate about whether andrew sullivan is a conservative and i'm happy to just say that if andrew Thinks he's a conservative. He has a number of conservative viewpoints. He's he's a conservative the question is is uh Whether given the complex of values that gay people have Does it make sense to be I mean, what is the I mean, I guess one of the questions is does it really make sense to join the democrats in the obama? I don't think this is a new question for i mean, I actually started thinking about this in the early 90s I did an early newspaper column because I ran I lived in park slope brooklyn And I ran into a gay guy who runs a small business And he was saying he's going to vote for rudy juliani who we now think is one of the more pro gay republicans But believe me back then in new york, that wasn't the perception And I started thinking about that being gay is an important part of of who gay people are but it's not the only Part right? I mean, he's also a small business owner You know crime and taxes lots of things affect him And just as being as you say being gay doesn't mean that you're going to vote in a political Collective based on your gay identity sometimes it will mean that And sometimes it will mean in the bigger complex of a commitment to liberty I would say here's we are living in an america where gay people are feel more and more free Open and empowered This could go in two directions a chunk of gay people are likely to therefore feel free to disconnect from Gay politics as a specific politics Another chunk are going to raise their expectations and things that were not really that salient Well, for example, like the marriage issue in 1990 nobody cared what you thought about gay marriage now It's become a symbol of gay aspirations I don't know what the next thing is but some people will raise their expectations and make these issues A symbol of whether gay people are respected in this country as well as a practical issue for their lives Other people will feel that's less and less relevant And they will decide whether they're conservatives and to vote for republicans Based on whether they think you know containing jihadism is better served by president mccain or president obama or who's going to lower their taxes or You know, I must say in my part my worry about jihadism is one reason I supported president obama after the disastrous wars And mistakes that president bush made I think that that was one of the critical reasons I supported president obama Because president bush's war on terror was such a catastrophe in so many ways And as a human being and as a catholic I find the the use of torture by the american government to be something so disgusting again I was trying to not make it about whether andrew is a conservative or not, but i'm just saying that yes I'm gonna say that i'm just different judgments based on these non-gay issues. I'm agreeing with you. Maggie. Totally agreeing with you Okay, i'm gonna take a question over here by the wall Jason kuznicki kiddo institute. Uh, my question's for maggi gallagher In 2003 Uh, I entered into a same-sex marriage. Uh, I've been with my partner ever since we've adopted a daughter I hear you say that there's a place Uh for gay conservatives. I I'm having trouble seeing it. However, what am I supposed to do? Someone in my situation. Do I do I leave my husband? Do I enter ex-gay therapy? Do I try to return my daughter to the state somehow? Uh, you know, I'm I'm I'm really not seeing this. I I don't understand how there is a livable place for gay people Who are conservatives to to your way of thinking I I can sort of understand Uh being an andrew sullivan gay conservative, but I also see that that's contentious What what I want to know is what I want to know is How am I to live my life if I wanted to be a gay conservative and I agreed with you? I don't know But you don't have to agree with me to be a gay conservative That's what I'm saying. What the question would be Can you participate in a political movement with you know the 80 percent of republicans who think marriage is the union of husband and wife Now if the question is how do I interact with you I could answer that if the question is how you interact with me You'd have to answer that right thank you. That's not that's not fair because because of the following fact I'm perfectly prepared and supported a president Bush who disagreed with me on the question of same-sex marriage That is not what the republican party is about The republican party is about a constitutional amendment to strip us permanently of any rights in our relationship and I support that constitutional amendment United states it is to single out a minority For permanent second-class status in united states it's the most radical attack upon a minority in this country since jim crow And you supported it as compare a the idea that marriage means one man and one woman to jim crow is so I mean I can't take morally seriously somebody who's going to the amendment the point of the amendment I can't know the point of the amendment that was to stop gay people now That is the what the point is Stop us forever the point Is that you hear that as an incredibly ugly and offensive attack I think that it's both true and good for the country and that for me that is perfectly consistent with believing That gay people have rights their citizens their friends their fellow neighbors How do you put that together? Can you name a single gay person who agrees with you? Yes I told you I have them they work for them. Oh, well. No, I'm not going to name them because I'm not Why not you told earlier you said you don't want to out an openly gay person What an absurd being an anti gay marriage. I'll let them do it. I'm not outing them as gay I'm outing them as being on my side even the most which means it's not true. Okay. Now you're calling me a liar Okay, I'm just calling name the openly gay people. You're calling me alive. You supported a constitutional amendment Okay, there are gay people Who maggi knows who support this amendment an openly gay people? Not very many, but I do know them They come to me. Sometimes they come to me secretly. I got a email from a guy who told me right before prop 8 This wasn't the federal amendment, but it is a I don't know. Maybe he was lying. I don't know him He emailed me and said he was at a dinner party with eight other gay guys And they realized they were all going to vote for prop 8 And uh, you know, I I don't maybe he just maybe some straight person is pretending that that was not my question My question was the constitutional amendment. It's a state constitutional. I'm too mother federal constitution You know what I'm talking about to avoid the subject the federal constitutional amendment I'm well known for avoiding difficult subjects for Andrew. I just I'm scared and I don't say what I think Will answer me Okay, answer the question. I certainly don't want to interfere in In in this dispute, but um, all I wanted to say is is that um Coming out is a very difficult process And the encouraging thing for us in the conservative party is that over the course of the last Four years, we found that hundreds and thousands if not millions of people have been coming out as conservatives and uh at a at one, uh Pride march in brighton, uh, we we, uh What by popular acclaim, uh the the the the gay Float in that in that pride, uh was considered by far the best because it consisted of a lot of uh Young conservative activists who were wearing the t-shirt. I came out as a conservative There are places where that's even harder, right? I don't doubt there's some Um, all right, I'm gonna take one more question right here. Yes I'm a law student at george mason and I noticed that this was a glbt type of um Seminar, but I didn't hear anything about the t part. So I want to ask is there a role for transgendered people in the conservative party Well, you mean the conservative community. There is no conservative party in america I absolutely believe so Um, but I'll tell you this are the people who control the republican party Consider it self mutilation And when you read the hateful disgusting literature by maggie gallagher's allies people she works with on a daily basis about transgendered people Um, there is no place within the republican party for people who are transgendered. I'm afraid It's gonna be really hard and and and I think that is a that is a function of pure ignorance at best Uh, and obviously bigotry So now you there is no role for transgender people In the current republican party. I believe that absolutely should be I think a transgender person Who for example believes that we need to have a strong defense and balance our budget shouldn't be welcome Welcome in the conservative movement even though the republican party doesn't believe in a balanced budget and there's And has no plans or proposals to cut spending in any way whatsoever and it's fiscally a fraudulent organization But um, if and when it does come to its senses, I hope transgender people will be fully part of that movement I will extend my invitation from open openly gay people who want to work for nom's mission to transgendered people too Nick I'll give you the last word here Well the answer to the question is, uh, I think yes, uh, there is and that the same Principles should apply. I just wanted to say that I I kind of look forward to the The day when we're not having this kind of debate, but instead of having the kind of debate that people About a wider political values and political policies when I was first elected Nearly five years ago I for a photograph with 50 newly elected conservative members of parliament at the house of commons and each each Person in the photograph of us all together In the times newspaper had a small caption underneath which described who they were So with my colleagues, it said things like, you know businessman or teacher Think tank person believes in small government. There was some small phrase of description and The description, uh, under my photograph just said gay eurosceptic And um, you know, I I was really quite cross about that And for a couple of years in the house of commons, um, I certainly wouldn't have Decided to make a speech like the one I've just made because I felt very strongly That these issues should be beyond debate that I was elected because I was a conservative and Had conservative values and had views and points of view that I wanted to have a validity In in what I said that had nothing to do with my sexual orientation I simply regarded it as irrelevant and I think most of my electors did but I came to see That it was important to take a stance on these issues for the signals that we send out to others And it was the many letters and emails and conversations that I had with people Who Simply thanked me for the fact that I had I had been elected and and was willing to be Open about who I was who that persuaded me That what we say About ourselves as political parties what we say about ourselves as politicians and and our values the language that we use and and The manner in which we can appear to push people away casually Is incredibly important in our ability as politicians and parties to communicate with people more widely And and and that is what I was trying to say About these issues not just that in principle it must be right that we treat people on the basis of An equal chance and and don't discriminate but also that as politicians we need I think to mount an appeal which is generous and optimistic and inclusive and that we should never be As as politicians people who simply Because of what what others may feel about us or about our views is are pushing People away and that's why I felt it was important to stand up and take a stance All right. Thank you all for coming. I want to thank Andrew Sullivan and Maggie Gallagher for a lively discussion And I want to thank nick herbert for favoring us with this Important and and in some ways pathbreaking speech and wish him safe travels getting back to london for an impending election Thank you