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.
‘In the closet, or in the crosshairs.’
Gay this, gay that... enough of the identity politics. If gays could drop their gay activism and simply be Americans then we wouldn’t have a problem.
Keep your perversions to yourself!
What’s wrong with being anti-gay? Why do so many conservatives buy the line that says we have to qualify our opposition? Gay-ness can’t exist without someone practicing it. Eliminate the gay people and you eliminate gay-ness. (And by “eliminate,” I don’t mean murder or assault; I mean convince them of the wrongness of their actions).
I understand the “hate the sin - love the sinner” meme. But one doesn’t “love the sinner” by tolerating a practice that will doom him to hell. One rejects the behavior — and its practicioner — and demonstrates that within that particular circle, perversion is not welcome. Repent. Change. Abjure the soul-robbing belief that you can copulate with others of your sex and we’ll welcome you back. Continue in your wanton and willful ways and you will dwell beyond the pale.
What’s wrong with that? Don’t we have the right to reject people whose behavior we find abominable?
I had to scan through lots of rambling to get to the above which his main objective of this article.
He wants Republicans find a way to look like they are accepting of homosexuality (LGBT “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender” is the new term ) to appeal to young voters without alienating the conservative base, good luck on that.
How about LGBT discrimination laws? He avoids that one completely.
How about appealing to Hispanics without amnesty? Republicans have no ideas there,
I used to believe homosexuality was a choice. I could never understand what 'natural selection' process would give an advantage to males not being able to procreate, and have a 'gay gene' of sorts. I now believe most homosexuals are defective, in the sense that something happened with the X or Y chromosome in the early stages of life that prevented them from becoming fully male or fully female.
So yes, I too have sympathy for them, as I do any handicapped person or sinner. Adultery and homosexuality are both sinful acts. "hate the sin - love the sinner"
Do homosexuals deserve more rights? No. We all have our God given rights.
The author needs to define “anti-gay”.
Without a definition, that type of discussion has no meaning.
“So what is wrong with being anti gay?”
Nothing. I won’t even use the word gay anymore. They are homos, or Sodomites.
That should be bronzed.
LLS
Remember the big picture.
The big target of the left is the family.
They seek its destruction.
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. I am proudly anti-homosexual. I feel sorry for people that have this chemical imbalance/mental disorder, especially the many who became homosexual after being sexually molested as a child.
Where we stand is “Live and Let Live” is not nearly good enough for the growing activist portion of the gay community.
I am anti-gay agenda.
I will also oppose any gay-agenda promoting person, whether gay or not.
Am I anti-”people who are homosexual”? No more than I am anti-”people who drink and drive”.
I’m not happy with chronic “dwi”ers, but they generally don’t stand up in public and loudly proclaim that everyone should be doing it.
For homosexuality to flourish, it must of necessity be SOLD or IMPOSED by a representative. After all, 2 gays don’t make babies. Gays are made, not born.
I Always get confused.
Was it General Sherman or General Sheridan who said...”the only god queer is a dead queer”?
In 30 years:
"As it happens, there are far more people engaging in beastiality who hold conservative values than many beast activists — or conservatives — realize. And we should embrace these people. Engaging in beastiality does not automatically mean that one is on the left, and conservatives should not make that assumption. Otherwise, we risk pushing beastiality conservatives leftward."
The person who controls the meaning of words controls the outcome of the debate. So, what exactly is “anti-gay” mean, exactly with respect to public policy and personal morality?
I take my personal morality from Scripture, which forbids sexual immorality of any kind. Moreover, Scripture tells us that it is God who defined marriage, not man. And Jesus tells us that although man has taken unto himself the power to alter marriage, that “from the beginning” it was God’s intent that marriage only is one man married to one woman. (see Matthew chapter 19).
I find sodomy to be revolting, disgusting and degrading.
Marriage is a God-define, not a government-defined institution. When we allow government to make decisions or to consider the marital status of any citizen for purposes of taxation, then we must allow government to decide and codify who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Because of the pervasive nature of government, and especially of the ever-expanding Leviathan State that we sadly have, the governmental definition of “marriage” takes on an authority all its own, apart from God’s statements on the subject in Scripture.
And that brings us to today’s political and moral tension, when the body politic becomes too detached from the idea that God defines marriage and starts to allow that the State can do so, no matter how unsuited it really is to do so.
Christians who defend the Scriptural definition might be tempted to say that it doesn’t really matter, but it does.
When you review the public positions and background material published by advocates of any-sex marriage, like the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage), you find that when the reasons are listed, most have to do with taxation, and personal decisions in the event of incompetence. But most of these issues are already addressed in other ways in existing laws.
Two unrelated people can already designate to each other the power of attorney so if the other is unable to make medical decisions, the other is legally empowered to do so.
Two unrelated people can designate property inheritance upon the death of either one.
The main issue has to do with allowing an unrelated person to gain access to the tax-exempted and employer-subsidized medical insurance of another person. This is yet one more horrible consequence of the decision made in World War 2 to allow employers to pay for the medical insurance premium with pre-tax money.
But every one of these issues could be repaired by simple changes in federal or state law. Yet, that is not what is being advocated. What is? The redefinition of marriage, not so that people can form same-sex unions, but so advocates of homosexuality can force everyone else to give something they yearn for very deeply- the approval of their sexual immorality.
It matters to me because as a parent, if I live in California and send my children to public school, it is official policy for the school to instruct my children on the benefits to society of this form of sexual immorality. If am forbidden to object or withdraw my child from this indoctrination.
It matters because if I am in business and I decline to provide services to same-sex couples because of how morally revolting they are to, they could use government to destroy my business. This is exactly what happened in California to a wedding photographer who declined to accept the work of photographing a same-sex “wedding”.
It matter because if I am an employer, and I have a company event, the same-sex “spouse” of an employee expects to be treated exactly the same as all other spouses, which is something I cannot do.
Having said all that, we live in a Constitutional Republic. I do not want to have a government that is so powerful that it can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home, or with consenting adults. I cannot demand privacy for myself and my wife without granting privacy to everyone else. However, advocates of rights for homosexuals are not satisfied with that. If we could just end it there, I could live my life and they could live theirs. However, they want to rub what they are doing in my face, so they can force me to approve of it.
Because, in the end, what they really want is approval, which they are never going to get. The are welcome to move to States where they can force people to approve, or at least prohibit them from objecting in public. That is not going to end well, for already California is becoming the most graphic example of social self-selection. That is, people who agree with that that state is doing are moving there and residents who can’t take it anymore are fleeing. As a result, Cali is becoming Greece and Sodom all wrapped into one. This is not just a matter of preference because at one time, California had the 7th largest economy in the world. It is slipping fast. And so, in a long string of moral consequences, we see how damaging “alternative lifestyles” can be to both personal morality and to our common prosperity.
RE: Was it General Sherman or General Sheridan who said...”the only god queer is a dead queer”?
__________________________
See post number 11 of this FR thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2745010/posts
And as such his lifestyle and choices contributes to the moral decay of not only the party but the nation. Sorry, Dennis. You can keep your half-conservatism.
One can be against Homosexual or Lesbian ACT but no need to be rude or crude against the person. I’m sorry I will not lower myself to a liberal level of calling people names simply because they don’t abide by God’s rule. Jesus himself said “I’ve come NOT TO JUDGE but to save”.
I treat everyone with respect (whether gay or not)the way they treat me. We treat Homosexuality as a the bigger sin just remember Heterosexual also have sexual sins which is not favor of God’s eyes. I myself am agaist Same Sex Marriage but no one should be deny jobs, insurance, etc. simply because of sexual orientation.
I feel sorry for them, as my mother always said “just pray for them”. I have doubt that I believe the majority were molested as a child. Again let us not lower ourselves to the liberal level of name calling.
That's very true.
The problem appears when gays want the right to do whatever they want to do by claiming privacy, yet want legal approval of those private acts.
On a personal level, I'm willing to let whatever happens in Vegas stay in Vegas, but legal recognition of someones 'sexual orientation' or 'gender choice' based on the fallacy of 'discrimination' is ludicrous.
There is no discrimination. We are all naturally born with a gender, and gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender as everyone else does.
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.