I think the family associations, such as Wildmon's, do good things, that they are the base, and that they have a better vision for American families.
At the same time, we must be open to participation by all manner of people. Is it possible to enforce a Christian morality in one area and not enforce it in others? Shouldn't Republicans have a plank about adulterers or About alcoholics if it has one about homosexuality? I don't say this facetiously.
If someone wants to start a Christian Conservative Party that has certain religious requirements for membership, then they have every right to do that and to run candidates from that party.
If, however, there is a greater liklihood of getting some of what you want with a secular POLITICAL party, then there's some leeway that needs to be given.
It's an extremely tough area to define.
I'd like to attempt a thoughtful response to your thoughtful posting.
I think it's largely a matter of official recognition and, therefore, validation. And so I'd put it this way.
First, there is no doubt that the GOP does in fact do business and form common cause with drunks, druggies, adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, child molestors, and the like.
But, if any of those groups formed an official group identified by that one trait (i.e. "Scarlet Letter Republicans," "Pedophile Pubbies," etc.), then such a group should not and must not receive formal recognition and validation.
I think that's the big issue. And, to be clear, unlike the group in the article, I do intend to draw a parallel between Log Cabin and NAMBLA.
Dan