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.
That is why we are losing America. You enable liberal causes
bttt
If you want a lovely chapel ceremony, a lavish reception and a honeymoon cruise, go ahead: that's what vendors (including -- ahem -- certain religious vendors) are all about.
If you want to co-sign on car loan or a bail bond, or a 30-year mortgage --- if you want somebody else to be your health care proxy, your financial proxy, or the sole heir of your estate --- more power to you: that's what contract law is all about.
None of this requires government approval -- a marriage license --- because there is no state interest (no civil, secular, public interest) in what you and your Extra Special Other have decided to do with yourselves for the nonce, for the weekend, or even for the rest of your lives. Two People In Love --- two adults pursuing their own fulfillment --- can do that on their own. Go ahead. No matrimonial certification required.
A public interest --- and hence, civil marriage --- arises only in the context of the one-and-only kind of sexual relation that can beget offspring: new human beings who are NOT adults, and whose identity, kinship and provenance are (usually, used to be "normatively") defined and sorted out by their origin in their parents' union.
That constitutes the core public interest in civil marriage.
As for all the rest?
It's a free country.
"We don't need a piece of paper from the City Hall."
Follow your bliss.
And leave me out of it.
“I have sympathy for those with homosexual attractions that they can’t control. We need to have compassion on such poor souls.”
Do you also “have sympathy for those with heterosexual attractions that they can’t control”?
Last time I checked, we call those folks “sexual harassers” if they have a little restraint, and “rapists” if they have none.
If you want to throw in the old “consenting adults” caveat, then you have fornicators and/or adulterers. Not real popular terms these days, but accurate, nonetheless.
Do you remember what “Imprinting” is from your biology and behavioral psychology school days. If not do some research.
I think God has designed children to be imprinted for good but unfortunately God's design has been perverted...........
> We can oppose same-sex marriage without being anti-gay.
We could, but then that would be implied approval.
I oppose homosexual everything.
I agree. Also, I’m sick of conservatives running scared, and hastening to “clarify” their beliefs when leftists start to screech and yelp. This defensiveness must stop.
The question why did Jesus come, has a lot of answers, It is Gods word that will judge us and we can and should use Gods word to inform others. In fact, if we do not speak the truth to them, we don't love them. It will be Jesus who saves us IF if chose that, but it will be Gods word that judges us, we DO NOT escape judgemt.:
“I came to testify to the truth”
“I came not to bring peace to the world but to divide..............” Homosexullity is a behavior. You and I discriminate on behavior all the time because they reflect character. Are you going to hire someone who embezzled from their former employer. Are you going to hire some one who cheats on his wife, are you going to hire someone who does drugs? I judge people all the time and then hold myself to the same standard. Evidence of repentance and change are always part of the process. Again homosexualitly is a behavior, behaviours are complex because God made us complex. Do some research on "imprinting" which I think is part of Gods design for us but has been perverted. Now think about what is imprinted on the kids these days.
In Washington State, “civil unions” came first, then “gay” marriage happened very quickly afterward. Don’t believe it, when they say it won’t.
Truly, hate the sin, love the sinner.
Civ Union bill died on the floor of the CO House last night!!
Yaaaa!
Gotta get the number of the bill passed in 2009, which affords all of the legal protections possible for ANY 2 people, without cheerleading the “gay” agenda.
There’s no need for more laws, as they only serve to “normalize” and promote.
Dennis Prager lost my respect with this piece of crap. He’s become another moderate, trying to straddle the fence and appear to be on both sides of the issue.
“I have sympathy for those with homosexual attractions that they can’t control. We need to have compassion on such poor souls.”
And I have sympathy for those with attraction to my property and income that they can’t control. But just because someone has an appetite does mean they should give in to it, or that it is moral or godly. The ‘feels good’ metric is a fraudulent one, yet that is the one we are being forced to accept with respect to same-sex “marriage” or sexual immorality in general. And by immorality, I also include all the Freepers who may nod in approval of this thread, that is up until the point where I observe how many call themselves “Christian”, that is a follower of Jesus Christ, and yet are living with a member of the opposite sex without being married to them.
Thanks sickoflibs.
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.