They're certainly fawning over one "gay" in particular, and trying to appeal to the rest of them.
But what I think is wrong is trying to use Reagan as a prop for this argument. Reagan was a man of his generation and I’m inclined to think as this author, “Reagan was silent on same-sex marriage, as was everyone of his generation. He, like all liberals of his time, could not have conceived of same-sex marriage, and he, like the entirety of the Democratic Party just a decade or two ago, unwaveringly supported traditional marriage.”
So for that reason we're just going to remain silent and retreat as the world rots away all around us? Just how much stuff are we supposed to accept as the Marxist "iron laws of history" unfold? If conservatism isn't standing up to these "iron laws" and fighting ideas such as homosexual "marriage," then what in blazes is it? Is everything money and the economy to you?
Also, the whole "he was a man of his time" argument is used by the Left to excuse cultural moral degradation.
You want to be a prophet go down the streets and preach to the masses. Rent a tent like the guy you fawned over, the hypocrite Ted Cruz. The moral fakeman. This is a guy you supported who wasn't even a man of his word. But I digress.
Also, the whole "he was a man of his time" argument is used by the Left to excuse cultural moral degradation.
No. It's called not thinking ahistorically. Don't try to impute something to him unless you can presume to think for him at this time. You're welcome to do it but if you think that's a "conservative" methodology you're wrong.