Posted on 05/09/2012 4:30:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In addition to labeling conservatives and Republicans “anti-woman” (for opposing government-mandated free contraception), “anti-black” and “anti-Hispanic” (for advocating photo identification for voting), and “anti-science” (for skepticism regarding the belief that man-made carbon emissions will destroy much of the planet), Democrats now regularly label Republicans “anti-gay” (for opposing same-sex marriage).
All these charges are demagogic. But when it comes to the “anti-gay” charge, conservatives need to clarify to ourselves as much as to the general public where we stand.
As an opponent of the most radical redefinition of marriage in history (more radical than outlawing polygamy), I have argued for the Defense of Marriage Act before Congress and have written and spoken on behalf of amending state constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I believe that the ultimate aim of the LGBT movement and the rest of the cultural Left is nothing less than to end gender distinctions.
But I am not anti-gay. Proponents of same-sex marriage may conflate opposition to same-sex marriage with being anti-gay. But conservatives must not.
Those of us who fear the consequences of redefining marriage — asking children if they hope to marry a boy or a girl when they get older, banning religious adoption agencies from placing children first with a married man and woman, denying the importance of both sexes in making families, choosing boys to be high-school prom queens and girls to be high-school prom kings, and much more — must make it clear that we regard homosexuals as fellow human beings created in God’s image just as heterosexuals are.
This issue has most recently arisen with regard to Richard Grenell, a foreign-policy aide to Mitt Romney, who resigned shortly after his appointment. It is not yet clear why he resigned, but many assume that he did so because he is a gay man who is an outspoken proponent of same-sex marriage and, as such, not a good fit for the Romney campaign.
The Grenell case notwithstanding, no conservative should oppose a competent gay serving in a Republican administration so long as the person shares the values of the Republican party. Even support for same-sex marriage should not necessarily rule someone out of a leadership position in the Republican party. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton supports same-sex marriage, and he is, for good reason, a hero to conservatives (although I could not back anyone for president who supported redefining marriage).
Only if a person is an outspoken advocate of same-sex marriage would he or she, whether homosexual or heterosexual, be a poor choice for a high position in a Republican administration — just as an outspoken defender of non–medically necessary abortion would be.
Conservatives must object to values, not to individuals.
As it happens, there are far more gays who hold conservative values than many gay activists — or conservatives — realize. And we should embrace these people. Being gay does not automatically mean that one is on the left, and conservatives should not make that assumption. Otherwise, we risk pushing gay conservatives leftward.
Conservatives have to be true to social as well as economic conservatism. But there is no reason why a gay should not be a conservative.
I am close to a gay man — and his partner — who lives in the heart of San Francisco. This man is a major fundraiser for Republican candidates. And given his homosexuality and where he lives, his Republican activism is courageous. He should be regarded as a major asset to the conservative cause.
It is the gay Left that argues that every gay person must think like a leftist. Conservatives should not help these leftist activists by objecting to gays holding positions of influence in the conservative political arena. I am not arguing that the Romney campaign should have retained Richard Grenell. I am arguing that Mitt Romney was right when he told Fox News last week that his campaign hires people “not based upon their ethnicity, or their sexual preference or their gender, but upon their capability.”
This is not only the right moral position; it is also the right political position. We have a much better chance to win young and independent voters whenever we show in word and deed that Democrats and others on the left are engaging in smears when they accuse conservatives and Republicans of being anti-woman, anti-minority, or anti-gay.
A gay person who believes in the American Trinity — Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum — and who believe in small government, in American exceptionalism, and in the need for America to be the strongest military and economic power in the world is one of us. And we should embrace him as such.
— Dennis Prager’s book Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph was published by HarperCollins on April 24.
The real question is can gays be republican without being gay activists and making their sexual preference central to everything they do?
The “Civil Union” bill slipping through the Colorado House today, doesn’t have any “Conscience Protections” in it, which sets the stage for future battles with the Catholic Church and others.
It amazes me how much time and ink is spent on language and thought processes twisting some kind of grey area out of an abomination.
So what is wrong with being anti gay?
RE: The real question is can gays be republican without being gay activists and making their sexual preference central to everything they do?
I think the answer is ‘YES’. That is — if they don’t succumb to the temptation. Politics is much more then one’s sexual preference.
The faggots took the word gay and are the ones who have radicalized. They use their perversion to call Tea partiers “teabaggers”. If they want conservatives to “get along” they should try changing their ways.
that would NOT be anti-science....that would be anti-sucker.(many scientists who are in the know....know that it is bogus)
as the purveyors of anthropomorphic global warming are left wing ‘religious zealots’ whose purpose is to turn America into just another 3rd world backwater.
Leviticus 18:22...
Koran, Shura 7:80-84...
I don't mind being called a Tea Bagger...as the loser-leftists are, in fact, Tea-Baggies...who do not mind (and probably enjoys) what dangles in their faces.....”
Not a dadgum thing.
Exactly.
Nothing in the anti-hetrosexual agenda has anything to do with equal rights. It’s tyranny and special rights for anti-heterosexuals.
LLS
Conservatives and Gays: Where Do We Stand? (We can oppose same-sex marriage without being anti-gay)
NO. As a Conservative, an American, a Christian, a human being, I must be anti-perversion. Does not mean I am against the particular person per se. I am against the perversion they participate in.
Homosexuality is a illness and we (all of the above) have allowed the Socialist/Communist/Progressives to remove it from an illness and even to bring it under protection of the Government. We messed up big time.............
I must confess, I am anti queer, when it's "in your face normal person, you must accept me and my perversions as normal".
Prager is talking about a hatred of gays as a whole, not just the hatred of their “lifestyle”. In that regard, the problem with being anti-gay is that you discard the whole individual on the basis of a personal failing. So many of these people are Libertarians or are mostly conservative aside from their sexual preference. Did you read the article?
Prager, a Jewish man I believe, is reflecting Christ like values. Look, we are called by God to love people but not embrace or endorse sin. I have known (and do know) homosexuals that are good, decent people. I won’t encourage their lifestyle—and in fact hope they repent.
We are all in need of God, and to deliver that message it often is best to let those around us know that in a manner they can receive and understand. Some (most) lost people are very spiritually deaf and dumb, so a gentler approach to them is needed.
Public policy issues, though, are a matter for us to stand strong to preserve a sane society. Again, it can be done gently....but must be done FIRMLY.
I HAVE noticed how the media isn’t reporting this vote was a BLOWOUT. More media bias.
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.