News
CPAC lifts ban on gay conservative group
No booth allocated, but GOProud will be allowed as a ‘guest’
The GOProud booth at CPAC in 2011. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
After years of being banned, a group for gay conservatives will once again participate this year in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference — although its involvement will be limited compared to previous years.
As first reported by the National Journal, the American Conservative Union announced on Wednesday that it would allow GOProud to participate in CPAC, which will take place March 6-8 at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.
Dan Schneider, the ACU’s executive director, said his organization decided to allow GOProud to return to CPAC following a meeting between the groups last week.
“The directors have a new vision for promoting a broad array of conservative priorities; from sound fiscal policies to strong Second Amendment rights to pro-life policies,” Schneider said. “We welcome GOProud’s attendance at this year’s CPAC conference. I believe their presence could help establish a productive relationship in the future.”
However, GOProud is only set to participate at CPAC as a guest at the event. No booth was allocated to the gay conservative group at the conference.
Ross Hemminger, co-director of GOProud, said his organization didn’t seek a booth at the event and wanted to participate as a guest to rebuild the relationship with the ACU.
“We will have the presence that we wanted there,” Hemminger said. “I’ve been making clear to people, we didn’t ask for a booth, we didn’t ask to co-sponsor, we asked to attend as guests, and the ACU and CPAC have been very willing to work with us to that, and they’ve been wonderful to work with.”
Although GOProud had a booth at CPAC in 2010 and 2011, the organization was barred from participating in 2012 along with the John Birch Society. Although the ACU would later say GOProud was barred for “disrespectful behavior,” GOProud always asserted it was barred from attendance because it identified as a gay group.
It should be noted that GOProud was invited back to CPAC in the first year that the former leaders of the group, Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron, are no longer affiliated with the organization.
But the lifting of the ban on GOProud wasn’t the only news on Wednesday regarding CPAC. New Jersey Governor and possible 2016 Republican presidential contender Chris Christie, who was snubbed at last year’s event, was allowed to have a speaking slot at the event.
One remaining question is whether the Log Cabin Republicans will attend CPAC. Gregory Angelo, Log Cabin’s executive director, said the decision is still up in the air.
“We’re still working out what LCR participation might look like at CPAC,” Angelo said. “Any Log Cabin Republicans presence would need to be meaningful.”
Asked what a meaningful presence would look like, Angelo said, “We’re still ironing that out.”
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
