An open letter to Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and all other active opponents of same-sex marriage:

For a variety of reasons, most if not all of which you have advanced among the non-religious, non-homophobic reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, I oppose same-sex marriage. This position has not been a pleasant one for me to take. But certain arguments against same-sex marriage, grounded in the essential nature of marriage and the state of marriage among straight people today, seem to me to compel the conclusion that, however much value there may be in same-sex relationships and whatever legal status such relationships ought to have, only a relationship that binds one woman to one man can be a marriage.

Because I believe there are such arguments, I have defended you (at least, some of you) on the charge of bigotry. I want to be able to continue to do so—especially you, Dr. Morse, since you were one of the first women I ever heard arguing that manly conduct often denounced by feminists is good for women as well as for men. That speech helped liberate me from the misandry I had internalized.

But I have been unable to find any way to defend the CPAC boycott. The boycott, conducted in response to the inclusion in CPAC of the gay conservative organization GOProud, is supposedly based on the premise that a non-conservative organization should not be in a conservative event. But it is difficult to see in what way GOProud is not a conservative organization.

First of all, one can normally count as a member of a political movement even if one does not agree with all its positions. Second, even if there are some positions with which one cannot disagree and remain a conservative, it is by no means clear that opposition to same-sex marriage is one of them.

But perhaps most importantly, GOProud is not for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Its position, clearly stated on its website, is that same-sex marriage is a question for the states; it opposes amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This is an impeccably conservative position. Marriage law is traditionally and constitutionally a state matter, and for the federal government to take control of it would be, as GOProud says, “an unprecedented federal power grab.”

So, as far as I can tell, the boycotters have taken the position that GOProud ought to be unwelcome at CPAC not because of its position on same-sex marriage, but because of its identity as a gay organization.

Now, I suppose it is possible to reject gay conservative organizations without rejecting gay conservative individuals. You might, for example, be perfectly content to have the NRA at CPAC even if it elected a gay president: GOProud is defined by gayness; the NRA is defined by the Second Amendment.

There is, certainly, a strand in conservative thought that rejects organization by demography. But the fact is that there are conservative organizations based on demography. Most notably, there are conservative women’s organizations such as the Network of enlightened Women, which, as I recall, hosted you at the University of Virginia, Dr. Morse. Conservative women’s organizations are valuable for at least four reasons: They can argue that conservative principles are good for women; they can thereby rebut the left’s claim that the right wants to oppress women; they can debate how conservative principles apply in women’s lives; and by their example, they can show that self-respecting women can belong on the right. And all the same reasons apply in the case of gay conservative organizations: They can argue that conservative principles are good for gay people; they can thereby rebut the left’s claim that the right wants to oppress gay people; they can debate how conservative principles apply in gay people’s lives; and by their example, they can show that self-respecting gay people can belong on the right.

There’s one problem with that last point: the boycott.

So whether we take the boycott to be aimed directly at gay people or at gay organizations, I cannot see how we can avoid interpreting it as asserting that gay people do not belong among conservatives. And today, Dr. Morse, your own Ruth Institute posted, and appeared to endorse, a column asserting that there could be no such person as a gay conservative—that the mere fact of being attracted to one’s own sex, regardless of what political positions one takes, and regardless even of one’s sexual choices, disqualifies a person from being a member of the conservative movement.

That’s not defending marriage. That’s making outcasts of people because of who they are, because of a nature they did not choose—because, to borrow your language, of how God made them.

That’s bigotry.

So tell me, Dr. Morse and any other boycotter who reads this: How am I supposed to continue to defend you? How am I supposed to believe that you are motivated not by the feeling that (as a friend of mine mockingly put it) “gay people are icky,” but by your convictions about the needs of straight men, straight women, and the children they conceive? What, if not an unwillingness to associate with gay people, is the justification of your boycott?

I ask these questions in all sincerity. I would like answers. I haven’t been able to find them.