Can openly gay Republicans win support from the party?

Several readers have asked for my thoughts on this topic: can openly gay Republicans win elections and support of the party?

I personally hope to see more openly gay GOP candidates running for local, state, and national office. It’s a great opportunity to sidestep the entire social issue from liberals and prevent them from using it as a hammer to beat conservatives to the ground like they have done in past elections.

I am a big proponent of the Republican party deflecting social issues and hammering liberals on the economy, Obamacare, etc. Instead, it seems as if liberals always manage to bring the argument back to social issues and that is where Republicans lose.

While it is true that there are some Republicans who would like to restrict behaviors that do not resonate with them, I have not found many who are at root anti-homosexual. When they are painted that way, it is usually over-spun or out of context.

Admittedly, some quote their interpretations of their religious scriptures, but again, these are actually a minority of the socially conservative people. What most social conservatives want are recognition of the value of monogamy, commitment to another, perhaps a less public display of sexual urgings. These things apply to all folks, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

As a Christian, I’m well aware of the Bible’s condemnation against homosexual sin. I am also well aware of the Bible speaking about throwing the first stone, the plank in your eye, and a multitude of other lessons that explicitly lay out the consequences of judging others for their sins before a perfect God.

I won’t presume to judge a man by one sin only if only to pretend that mine are invisible or any less disgusting to a sinless creator.

I do recognize that there are folks who identify themselves as Christian, and believe they are, who would like nothing better than to align our laws such that ours was a Christian-governed nation. Much like there are many Muslims who would like nothing better than to conform our laws to Sharia law and include the U.S. within the global caliphate.

I may be guilty of redefining terminology to suit my world view, but I am going to declare that these types of Christians are:

1. Not social conservatives.

2. Misunderstand the Christianity they believe was intended to be embraced as taught or intended by Jesus.

Christians who believe they are entitled to force their particular interpretation of their faith on others are not, by this very impulse, aligned with root socially conservative principles at all – which embrace individual liberty, personal responsibility, and respect for the autonomy of others to pursue their own preferences regarding vocation, life style, philosophical thought, etc., so long as these do not harm others (defense is an exception.) Out of this style of conservatism falls fiscal conservatism as well.

While it may be true that many good laws governing this or any other nation or community may be consistent with Christian teachings, this does not mean that every Christian teaching should be imposed. That is why our government was intentionally limited at its conception.

If these openly gay candidates oppose Obamacare, support the 2nd amendment, and think Benghazi has brought blood on Obama and Hillary’s hands, I’m ready to write a check right now to them.

Many conservatives understand and are comfortable with the fact that sexual preference has no bearing on the ability to form independent and credible thought with compassion, logic, and facts. And that is seen as a threat to liberals, who depend on followers who will embrace a narrative so long as it is rhetorically nice and emotionally compelling.

That conservatives are, by definition, anti-gay is preposterous, although the American liberal movement would like everyone to think so.

This reminds me of the racism narrative that is promoted by the left. They would have you believe that the party of Abraham Lincoln was a racist one. What they do not understand is that the civil rights legislation of the 60′s was written by republicans and rejected by democrats until they understood the political value of it. Lyndon Johnson himself was truly understood to be racist, until he saw the opportunity for Democrats to grab votes.

I for one, as a conservative, welcome any conservative gay or lesbian to come over and join the effort to reign in government and divorce the state from regulating our behavior.


It is liberal homosexuals that are interested in forcing their agenda on the rest of the country. There are in fact many, many, homosexuals who are not interested in forcing their agenda, and would rather we just live and let live. They are quiet about it. We only hear the noisy folks.

There is nothing about being a homosexual that is not consistent with being a “true conservative” unless one wants to define “true conservative” as heterosexual-only. I reject that.

A true conservative would, of course, advocate for the liberty of preference when that preference is not harmful to others. I prefer “green”. Who is to say that I should prefer “red” ?

Fiscal conservatives should welcome anyone who wants to team with them to reign in the scope of government and reduce its intrusiveness into our own economic and personal lives. To that point, folks from the gay and lesbian community would be a real asset for that effort.

I wish good luck to any political candidate that wants to work for a government that reigns its scope and spending in to a more balanced posture, who is able to prioritize what our government does and doesn’t do, that is optimistic enough with respect to what Americans are capable of to embrace the importance of personal responsibility and liberty of choice regarding both our economic and social decision making.

To that end, the portions of the gay community that are fiscally conservative will find a much more welcoming environment within the conservative or libertarian spectrum than they ever will within the American liberal perspective.

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.