Saturday, April 11, 2009

Those Gay Republicans and Their Dishonest Friends

For some time I have been troubled with the homosexual reaction to Republicans and conservatives. I have often heard homosexuals rail on the Republican Party as being a party of bigotry and intolerance. While I am not denying that these aspects exist within the party, I do contend that these issues are lacking in the thought of true conservatives. What you may find is a number of men and women who do not agree with homosexuality. You will also find those who believe that though homosexuals deserve the same constitutional rights as heterosexuals, they believe marriage is a deeply religious covenant in which the government has no place (People like Ron Paul and myself). These conservatives believe that the government should not be in the business of marrying people—hetero or homosexual. This is the business of the church. Still another aspect of this is the issue of federalism. If a State does decide to define marriage, whether or not one believes it should, it does have authority to do so under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. However, remember though something may be permitted, it may not always be beneficial.

Vermont is a perfect example of federalism in the issue. Its people, through the state legislature, have chosen to allow homosexual marriage. Though I disagree in substance, I respect the right of Vermont’s people to decide for themselves on the issue. I also support the right of the people to voice disapproval by booting out the current supporters of the measure and to overturn the legislation. As for me and my state, we can decide for ourselves. We did through a state constitutional amendment.

What I cannot stand is for homosexuals to act as if they would be more open to the GOP if only they wouldn’t be such “bigots” on the gay marriage issue. This is a flat out lie. Most of the homosexuals I know are not only socially but economic liberal on the issues. If the Republicans had the same position as the Democrats (like was the case in the last presidential election), they would still vote Democrats (like they did) because they are liberals. Stop trying to hold to a false high ground, acting as if not for the marriage issue, you would be some type of conservative or libertarian. No you would not! If you were a conservative, you would realize that the issue of marriage is not an issue of the government. And if it is, is sure doesn’t belong to the federal government.

Now I am not speaking of all homosexuals. There are a number of gay Republicans. What prompted this blog was an article found here, which is about a new group defecting from the famous gay GOP group the Log Cabin Republicans. The new group, GOPROUD, is forming because the LCGOP has been drifting farther and farther to the left. What I most enjoyed about the article was the last comment by a conservative gay man who notes:

"‘If your main issue is hate crimes or [federal anti-discrimination legislation] or marriage, you're probably not a Republican,’ Barron said, saying that while he backs gay groups on those other issues, they shouldn't be federal priorities.”
Here is the point. Most of these gay activists don’t understand federalism, the very tool that is working to get gay marriage approval, because rather than supporting nation GOP candidates who have their true best interests in mind, they allow state level issues to dictate federal action.

*******As a point of clarification, I am not in any way supporting homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and not a worse sin than others. Like all sins it should be repented of not celebrated. I myself am sinful, and without the grace of Jesus Christ, I would be completely lost. Saying that, like all classic evangelicals I believe in freedom of conscience. We cannot merely change the culture through politics. We must change the culture by the preaching of the Word. Only then will the culture change the political world.


  1. I don't know... I DO think that homosexuals have a solid case against the MAJORITY of the GOP (not you and MAYBE not Ron Paul, but most of them, especially the representatives from the Southeast portion of the U.S.)... it has been statistically proven that most GOP members disagree with the premise of homosexual marriage on NO OTHER FEASIBLE GROUND than religion. While it is voiced ever so wonderfully in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights that Religious ideals can be expressed vividly, you cannot estrange people by telling them that they cannot marry and lead industrious lives; no matter how hard the Church tries, they cannot monopolize "love". Besides, marriages can occur OUTSIDE of the Christian church; long before the Church had even been established (and thus the normative rules that govern marriage as we know it), people were getting married by way of various ceremonies. If you're going to deny homosexuals the right to marry, then you may as well deny Muslims, Buddhists, Daoists, Canadians, et al. the right to marry (though Canadians may not be such a bad; regardless of one's sexual preference/orientation, one is still entitled to live a fulfilled life here in the U.S., and allowing gay/lesbian/trans couples to marry is an integral step in making sure that these rights are not impeded upon by the religious ideals of others. Besides, if Jesus was here, do you think that he'd be more concerned with spiritual fluidity within the church, or homosexuals within the church (after all, how are we justified enough to say that homosexuals cannot worship God? That's as if one is also saying that drug dealers, prostitutes, corrupt politicians, et al. can't have access to God? We know that this is not true, given that the biggest breakthroughs in the NT came through those with the worst backgrounds...).

  2. Thanks for the comment. My main point was merely that homosexuals cannot claim that they would be conservatives if not for the marriage issue. Their stances on other issues show otherwise.

    Furthermore, my intention was not to deny that the institution of marriage is claimed by a number of cultures and religions.When originally writing this blog I made a point to explain how I understand the concept of marriage is found in countless other cultures and belie systems, but I believe that only Christian marriage is true marriage in the eyes of God.

    As for what would Jesus think: Well he obviously would (like he does in the New Testament) condemn homosexuality, but likewise he would condemn all sin--much of which is not only present in the church but accepted by it. His concern is for His people. And his people are called to turn from their sin, repent, and follow Him. Everyone that is saved was a "slave to sin." When Christ redeems us, we must leave that sin behind. Sure we will struggle, but we must not justify our sin because "that is who I was born as. That is who I am." I was born a vile sinner; a vile sinner is who I am, but now that I have been born again. I must repent and leave my sin behind.

    In this blog, which I threw together quickly late in the evening, I did not want to appear as any friend to the cause of gay marriage. That I am not. What I did want to appear as was someone who is an enemy of the Federal government defining marriage--hetero or homosexual--and a friend of the Constitution. I am also an enemy to the thought that the marriage issue and so-called "gay rights" are the only reasons gays are liberals.