I like Kevin James, the hilarious actor from “The King of Queens”. He also played an inept boyfriend in “Hitch”, then security guard in “Mall Cop.”
There is another Kevin James whom I want to like, lawyer, radio host and Los Angeles mayoral candidate. He is openly gay. Unlike Seinfeld and friends, I believe that there is “something wrong with that”. The controversy surrounding James sexuality has deep implications for the Republican Party, the state, and the country, too. His campaign for LA Mayor is being touted as a turning point for the California Republican Party. Conservatives want to advance candidates who champion limited government, local control, lower taxes, less spending, and individual liberty. However, they are facing a growing tide of “demanded acceptance” for “gay marriage”. Former Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich conceded that the Republican Party cannot win the battle over this issue. Larry Kotkin signaled without resignation that young Republicans are more accepting of gay marriage than old Democrats.
I am not so inclined. A British airline pilot enlightened me when he defined “marriage” as between one man and one woman, not out of offense or disgust, but because that is just the way it is: like “2 + 2 = 4”. Marriage by condition, by tradition, by definition is “one man and one woman.’” This position cannot be articulated based on tradition only, since traditions are subject to change, and for the better, sometimes.
Touching on the core issue, I have never once believed that homosexuality is a matter of identity, but rather a matter of choice, pure and simple. Tammy Bruce, the fiery openly-lesbian radio host who voted for Reagan both times, admits that she chooses to be lesbian. Conservative radio host Dennis Prager illustrated “gay as choice” when he discussed the prevalence of homosexuality among women who enter prison. Some female prisoners engage in sexual relationships with other inmates, but when they leave prison, they get married and have children.
I have encountered numerous individuals who lived a “gay lifestyle”, then abandoned it because of boredom and emptiness. One man acknowledged that his relationship with another man was “all pretend”. In many lesbian couples, one woman is “more manly” than the other. An LA Weekly article called “Gay Happiness” reported that there is very little, mostly because a “gay relationship” centers around a sex act, nothing more.
On average, homosexuals have a diminished lifespan (20%), and this statistic is born out in both accepting and condemning cultures, even after factoring out disease and dysfunction. Ancient historians, including Polybius, witnessed the implosion and demise of Greek city states because of the breakdown of proper sexual relationships. Beyond Conservative Dinesh D’Souza’s declaration that “Men need women, not men!”, homosexuality, like any other deviant sexual conduct, damages the body, soul, and spirit. Looking past individual problems, if people endorse “gay marriage” (not “marriage equality”, since marriage has nothing to do with equality, but mutual, unified submission), where do we draw the line? How do we forbid a man from marrying a horse, a doorknob, or a minor?
Frankly, marriage should be a private matter; not even civil unions should exist. No pastor should appeal to a government authority to join anyone in marriage. “Tolerance” must be the word, then. Then again, gay political activists insist that they will not tolerate “tolerance”. They must be accepted as “gay”. I asked one activist to explain his “gay identity”. He sounded more confused than ever. Sex and sexuality is a choice, but the wisest choice is sex within the boundaries of marriage, between one man and one woman.
I am on record for supporting one gay candidate. In 2012, real estate agent Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, a state senate minority leader and openly gay Republican, had a sporting chance against fourteen-term and irrepressibly corrupt Democratic Congressman John Tierney. I even wrote a post to the Wrentham Patch (hometown for US Senator Scott Brown) entitled “Sixteen Trillion Reasons to Give Five Hundred Pennies to Richard Tisei.” Get rid of Tierney, rev up a conservative resurgence in the Northeast, and show the Bay State, New England, and the rest of the country that “The Republican Party can compete nationwide.”
Tisei was a “live and let live Republican”: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, refused to sign the “Grover Norquist Tax Pledge”, with a respectable record of resisting taxes, spending, and waste. Offering himself up as an “unsullied” alternative to a troubled incumbent, Tisei lost by one measly percentage point, depressed by the uninspiring leader of the GOP ticket. Then again, a campaign of “I’m gay and better than that guy” was probably not compelling enough, either.
As for Kevin James, the openly gay entertainment lawyer-radio host running for mayor of Los Angeles, I want to like the man. I could – maybe – vote for the guy. But could I knock on doors or make phone calls for him? Would my vote endorse a lifestyle contrary to a person’s body, soul, and spirit? How “big” should the GOP tent be, then, without compromising the truth? These are questions which this California Republican faces “coming out” as “pro-life, pro-marriage”.