Gay Conservatives, the GOP, and Getting Over it All

GOPround founder Jimmy LaSalvia has left the building, as in the Republican Party, and become an Independent conservative. President Obama sounded off on his departure, even though Democrats in Washington are weighing whether to run for office in 2014 or jump ship of state while the jumping's good.

Yet the issue of homosexuals in the Republican Party, and whether the national GOP should change its platform, requires more discussion than offered by one activist leaving the party.

The “gay issue” has spurred bloggers to blather. Townhall.com discussed that three gay conservatives will be running for Congress as Republicans, including Carl DeMaio in my home state, as well as Dan Innis for New Hampshire and Richard Tisei (probably) for a rematch in MA-6 against John "My wife's the crook" Tierney. Ann Coulter attended and spoke at GOPround meetings, too, adding some legitimacy (?) to the group.

Still, Mr. LaSilva is leaving a party which he believes is doomed because the leadership will not accept recognize the homosexual lifestyle. Honesty, with or without LaSilva, the rainbows will keep shedding their seven-fold wonder, and the six-striped symbol for homosexual causes will, well...who knows?

The issue of gay conservatism, and by extension Log Cabin Republicans, and the log-rolling which may ensue as a result of this controversial matter, may spell big trouble for the Republican Party and conservative interests in general.

Or maybe not.

Frankly, the origins (or etiology) of homosexual behavior have not received their due vetting, likely because individuals, leaning left or right, do not want to be labeled intolerant bigots. This subtle poison of group acceptance/conformity has pushed interest groups, private institutions, and especially public sector interests to recognize homosexuality as another identity, and those who live out such conduct as another minority.

These assertions are false. Homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one. The notion that one is born attracted to someone else of the same sex makes no sense. The cohort of consequences associated with such conduct demonstrates a legacy of disease, dysfunction, and death. Yet the fact that many leaders in our political culture, and in our locales, are not pushing back against the rising tide of "coerced acceptance" is alarming. One of the schemes behind the Gay Rights movement included the argument that people “are born that way”, and thus to disparage homosexuality makes one a bigot.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

People are not born gay. Thousands have abandoned the homosexual lifestyle for a heterosexual lifestyle. Even Libertarian lesbian Tammy Bruce acknowledges that she chooses her lifestyle.

Yet other limited government leaders are not leading on this issue. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie waffled during his debate with Democratic no-chancer Barbara Buono in 2013. When pressed with the inevitable hypothetical that one of his kids would announcing a homosexual predisposition, Christie responded:

"I would hug my child, tell him I love him, then say “Marriage is not for you."

What kind of an answer is that? Unjust and inauthentic, to say the least. The truth is that homosexuality is not a course of conduct one is born or destined to carry on. Nor should conservatives ignore the cultural repercussions of this lifestyle.

In a free society, consenting adults will choose to abuse or respect their bodies. Conservative MP Margaret Thatcher moved to decriminalize homosexual conduct between consenting adults. Such liberty (or rather libertarianism) is the better solution. Furthermore, the Republican Party National Committee took a vote on the marriage issue, and decided that the platform would still recognize marriage as between one man and one woman. Following the overturning of the anti-polygamy laws in Utah, as well as the potential dangers of subcultures which respect child-marriages, a stance on defining traditional marriage remains a worthwhile fight.

Despite this seeming division in the GOP on gay issues, this country, and the voting public, should not be forced to recognize gay marriage by cowardly politicians and vain efforts to grow one’s party. Instead of running from this debate, and permitting a vocal yet very limited minority of interests to shame people into quiet acquiescence on homosexuality, it’s time for people to gain some courage and explain the myriad  consequences of homosexual conduct, as well as the acceptable resistance to its legitimacy.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus declared that there is room in the GOP for pro-gay marriage. So be it. US Senator Bob Portman (R-Ohio) endorsed the policy because of his gay son. Not so good. As a father, Portman should have discussed identity and the proper scope of sexual relations with his son, as well as other matters which have influenced him.

Yes, there are “gay” Republicans, yet the argument that they should be welcomed because of their homosexuality is both irrelevant and insulting. Homosexuality is a choice, and a bad one. Besides, conservatives as a rule recognize the importance of key institutions, many of which should not be changed, and some with only the greatest deliberation.

GOProud LaSilva’s departure is not a big deal. Conservatism (and the GOP) should recognize a libertarian stance on marriage (get the government out of it), and move on.