Posted on 05/23/2022 7:48:44 PM PDT by Ennis85
Until a few days ago, few people outside the offices of National Review knew that the revered conservative magazine’s publisher is a homosexual, “married” to a man.
“The publisher of the most important conservative magazine of the last 60 years, National Review, is gay-married?” wrote The Stream’s Peter Wolfgang, who broke the story. “Garrett Bewkes, the man overseeing the magazine once edited by William F. Buckley, has a husband.”
“He’s been the publisher for five years. How did this happen? And what does it mean for the conservative movement and the Republican party?” Wolfgang asked. “I suspect a lot of NR’s long-time readers don’t know this. I wouldn’t have known if a local newspaper hadn’t run an article by Bewkes’ ‘husband’ Bradley.”
Wolfgang, president of Family Institute of Connecticut Action, continued:
Together they’re starting a Connecticut chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. That’s a group “dedicated to representing LGBT conservatives and allies” in the Republican party, as they explain on their homepage.
…
Bradley Bewkes will be point man for the efforts to subvert what little opposition there is to the LGBT agenda within the Connecticut GOP. Garrett will apparently continue subverting what little belief in marriage remains on the American right.
LifeSiteNews reached out for comment to a number of current and previous National Review contributors and staff, but as of this writing, all have either declined or ignored the invitation.
Conservative elites who once boldly defended the immutable definition of marriage as between one man and one woman have, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages, chosen to remain silent as a rising breed of conservative homosexuals — let’s call them “GayCons” — increasingly bring into conservative circles an ideology that at its core is massively anti-conjugal marriage, anti-family, and anti-child, but very much pro-homosexuality.
Our conservative elites’ silence on homosexuality and same-sex marriage speaks loudly about their truce with sodomy, yet is unsurprising considering who some of the major players are delivering news consumed by conservatives nowadays:
Glenn Greenwald, perhaps the top independent investigative journalist in the world, is “married” to another man with whom he is raising two sons. Bari Weiss, formerly of The New York Times whose substack produces some of the best coverage and criticism of woke culture and politics, left her husband and is now “married” to a woman.
Andy Ngo, the intrepid journalist who at great personal risk provided unparalleled coverage of Antifa violence, is openly gay.
Jim Hoft, founder and editor-in-chief of Gateway Pundit, is gay and “married” to a male reportedly half his age.
Dave Rubin, host of the popular Rubin Report, announced earlier this year that he and his “husband” are expecting the birth of two children via surrogacy.
Richard Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence and U.S. ambassador to Germany and a partnered homosexual, joined Newsmax in December as a national security contributor and executive for international partnerships.
Fox News personality Guy Benson is “married” to a man and The Daily Wire’s Spencer Klavan is engaged to a male colleague at the conservative media site.
All of these news sources, which are hugely popular among conservatives, are compromised when it comes to homosexuality. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage have been fully accepted, normalized, and embraced.
National Review quietly surrendered to same-sex marriage long ago
In 2013, I was invited to be a panelist at The National Review Summit in Washington, D.C. I was then a self-identifying gay who had publicly come out against the big push for same-sex marriage.
The panel of conservative academic all-stars arguing for preserving the immutable definition of marriage included Professor Mark Regnerus, a University of Texas sociologist; Professor Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia and founder of the National Marriage Project; Maggie Gallagher, conservative author, activist, and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, and me, and was hosted by the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson.
There was one other gay man who spoke at the National Review Summit that year: billionaire PayPal founder Peter Thiel.
Other than my panel and one other session during the three-day event, “Social conservatism was conspicuous at the summit as a topic that organizers downplayed,” noted The Atlantic at the time.
[O]nly two panels during the entire three-day event really focused on social issues: a Friday talk on abortion (which coincided with the first day of the annual March for Life) and a panel on marriage on Sunday. The latter of these panels, fascinatingly enough, featured one of the summit’s only two openly gay men: Doug Mainwaring, of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots. (The other, venture capitalist Peter Thiel, didn’t really address gay marriage.) But Mainwaring opposes gay marriage, putting him at odds with the two biggest gay Republican organizations, GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, both of which advocate for marriage equality. Neither had any official representatives on stage during the event, though GOProud board member Bruce Carroll attended the conference as a blogger.
Thiel wasn’t challenged about his views concerning same-sex marriage, presumably because his voice on fiscal issues was prized as were, no doubt, his deep pockets.
Five years later, after I had published a commentary entitled “The gaying of Fox News,” calling attention to the increasing presence of homosexual on-air personalities and support — even among Catholics — for same-sex “marriage” at the network, a National Review article chided me for my Catholic viewpoint and for warning readers “Don’t expect truly ‘Fair and balanced’ reporting on LGBT issues from Fox News.”
I expected to take hits from gay media when I published that piece, but not from the venerable conservative Catholic publication founded by William F. Buckley.
There were other indications at the time: Off the record, behind the scenes discussions with folks who are now towering mainstream conservative personalities who indicated to me that they viewed same-sex marriage as not only inevitable but a good thing. They were glad the issue was about to be “settled” as a matter of law and of public discourse.
Conservative grassroots and conservative elites: not the same
Conservative grassroots and conservative elites are not the same. At the grassroots level, men and women still cherish and uphold conjugal marriage; elites no longer care and have moved on to focus their attention on criticizing the rise of transgenderism. Yet their moral outrage over transgenderism’s ugly hold on popular culture will likely soon wane.
In The American Conservative commentary titled “No Allies Who Buy Babies,” Declan Leary concluded:
The normalization of homosexuality, and especially the normalization of homosexual parenthood, necessarily leads to the more radical gender ideology advancing from the left today. If men and women are perfectly interchangeable in sex, and in the role of a mother or a father — those things most closely tied to biological reality — then of course they must be interchangeable in everything else. The premises underlying the acceptance of L, G, and B logically lead to T, sooner or later.
Bank on it. It will happen.
Celebrate
Perversity
I stopped reading it when Buckley died - already 14 years ago. It now represents Democrat Party views of the 1990s.
Not Trump’s policies personally so much as those of his Administration, so many of whom were anti-MAGA infiltrators and traitors.
Andrew Sullivan precursor.
I have heard few conservatives arguing against Social Security or Medicare over the past few decades.
Well that certainly explains a lot.
My wife is Chinese. My PhD is from a university in China.
But yes, you can immigrate to China though not many people do. However, you have to have a skill they need or money to support yourself. The larger cities are not cheap and unlike the UK and Europe, there is no “Obama Care”/Socialized medicine.
The problem is, the Right has been "moving on" for generations.
I've been following politics since the 1970s. I wore Nixon buttons on my tie when I was a kid in Catholic grammar school. (So did most of the boys at my school.)
I remember when in the late 1970s Anita Bryant was campaigning against a "non-discrimination" bill in Florida that would have allowed gays to teach kids in schools.
The Republican position was, Gays should not be allowed near children.
The Democrat position was, Gays should be allowed to teach kids provided they kept their sexuality out of class discussions (i.e., if they stayed in the closet).
Both parties opposed gay marriage. It wasn't even on the table for discussion.
Since the 1970s, the Right has been losing one battle after another, always shrugging and saying, "Time to move on.
And thus has our culture moved ever Leftward.
I, personally, am very disturbed by the plethora of gay “conservatives” paraded on FOXNEWS, despite the fact that in every other way, their views are conservative. And even though they do espouse conservative viewpoints, I am uneasy about them. In my Christian worldview, homosexuality is a grave sin. Yet we know we are to love the sinner, and that they may be won over for the LORD by our good treatment of them. But that must never be misinterpreted as approval of their lifestyle. I pray for them, that the LORD will reveal Himself to them, and as they are truth seekers in other ways, they will receive the truth of their sin.
Unconditional Surrender is Exactly what RINO’s do. It is Establishment Republican’s, Trade Mark. It is the Only thing consistent with RINO’s. You can take this fact to the bank.
They are solely responsible for the rise of the Tea Party and President Donald Trump.
RINO’s are stone-cold capitulation queens. Gutless wonders. They are the Enemy Within.
And, their latest champion is the worthless excuse for a man named Mike Pence.
Dumped them years ago.
Giving a secular government administrative authority over marriage is like having the government give out bar mitzvah certificates.
National Review featured articles about “the conservative case for” everything that isn’t remotely conservative long ago.
The National Review used to be revered and used to be conservative.
Yes, I used to be a devout subscriber myself . . . until about the time they began firing and sidelining true (and honest) conservatives like Joe Sobran.
See my tagline.
That all happened a while back and it’s not going to change. At this point, it’s surprising if media people, right or left or center or apolitical, aren’t gay. Unless there is some unwise and unnecessary purge you probably won’t find a conservative periodical that doesn’t have someone gay writing for it.
Any other viewpoint is considered extremist religious fanatic stuff. By the ruling class that is, not just a particular political party..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.