The Republican Party is a pro-life party and it will remain so. It is also the Party of traditional values – and it will likewise remain so. The words “traditional values” apply especially to the subject of so-called “homosexual rights,” an issue where a lot of confusion exists.
There is plenty of good information available on the web for anyone who wants to understand this debate. I encourage you to invest the time it takes to learn about the psychology, health consequences, and that community’s efforts to confuse children about the nature of sexual desires.
Human impulses – the engine in all of us that propels action, creates desire, forms tastes and preferences – are both profound and simple – they are a part of the human condition. The pro-“homosexual rights” advocates actually have common ground with defenders of traditional values in this one regard: both sides see human sexual impulses as more than just another inner urge.
It’s not an over-simplification to say one huge disagreement between the camps is whether those impulses are controllable or changeable.
Some bad news for the religious bigots
My advocacy for traditional values stems from having reached the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian ethic works best. Since Plato and Aristotle through St. Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, the search for “the good” for society has been unsurpassed when it comes to basic Judeo-Christian morality.
Based on the foundation that Judaism and Christianity point men in the right direction, my view is that the entire premise of “homosexual rights” advocates is intellectually and morally bankrupt. If a person’s behavior can’t be discriminated against, then you can kiss civilization goodbye.
The notion that human rights statutes should equate race, gender, ethnicity and age with human sexual impulses is faulty. If a person can be born attracted to the same sex, a person can be born attracted to children – so much for the “I was born that way” justification.
What about religion, you ask? Religious faith is behavior – a choice. I’d say a couple of things. First, it’s clear that those who throw off traditional norms would like nothing more than to make a religion out of their sex life – in fact, some already have.
They’ve formed rituals – like the homosexual pride parades that even self professed “homosexual feminist” Tammy Bruce denounces. They have high priests – such as the aggressive and outspoken “homosexual rights” activists. They have temples – Judy Baar Topinka helped get funding for one in Chicago a few years ago.
They even have a church doctrine. Anyone who has dealt with members of this community understands the petty games played that make the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin look like a discussion about quantum mechanics.
For these people, their life revolves around regularly having orgasms. Sorry if that’s crude, but based on the behavior of some, it’s apparent that their sex life is more important than their job, their friends, their family, or even their children.
But until someone can show me how “homosexual” pilgrims emigrated to a new continent for the purpose of finding “religious” freedom, I’m going to continue to chuckle at the notion that “homosexual rights” are the equivalent of the kind of religious liberties discussed in the First Amendment that was ratified in 1791.
By the way, pilgrims, moving to San Francisco or to Chicago’s “Boys Town” neighborhood doesn’t count.
“Give me that man that is not passion’s slave.” (Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 2)
My personal view is in support of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for polite society. Keeping your private life private is better for the social fabric. My one exception remains for those who run for or hold political office.
Why? Because voters need to know a person’s real motivation – and the Republican Party has experienced too much damage during the past decade caused by individuals whose true passion wasn’t the GOP platform – to say the least.
What am I referring to? There is no better example than former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert. While I’ll leave speculation about his personal problems to other people, it’s widely known in Illinois and in Washington, D.C. that the Hastert staff was motivationally challenged, again – to say the least.
How can you be second in line to the presidency and fail on such a massive scale as Speaker Hastert? In part it is because you hired the wrong staff.
The same question can be raised about the White House political operation led by Karl Rove, as well as the Republican National Committee led by Ken Melhman.
Let me be clear – I’m making no allegations about any one of the people named above – I’ll leave that to others. I merely point out something that is rarely written about but is often discussed.
There comes a point – and we reached one back in 2006 with the Mark Foley scandal – where clear-thinking Republican leaders have to step up and face the facts. A person can’t effectively advance the GOP platform if they’re confused about human nature and the consequences of certain behaviors.
Now that Hastert is out of office, key former members of his staff like John McGovern continue to do damage to the state GOP. If you doubt that, ask Illinois State Party Chairman Andy McKenna why he pays McGovern so much money out of the state party coffers. (The same question should be asked of Hastert – why did Denny pay McGovern so much out of the Keep Our Majority Pac fund?)
At this point it needs to be said that this phenomenon is not new, especially in Illinois. The rumors about former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson were never responsibly dealt with by Republican leaders in this state. Whether Thompson is or was homosexual is irrelevant (and again, I’d rather not know). Whether the “homosexual GOP” culture has thrived in Illinois for many years is relevant.
The need for moral leadership
It’s important for rank and file Republicans to understand the back-story and the characters involved in the Illinois GOP. How else will people understand why this state’s Republican Party and its leadership are such a disaster?
Friends of mine joked that the promise of a Ray LaHood stint at the U.S. Department of Transportation might solve some of the problems of unemployed homosexual Hastert staffers. But it’s no joke that Mark Kirk would be put forward as a Republican U.S. Senator from Illinois.
Illinois citizens need to realize that a good part of the recent enthusiasm by some “Republicans” for a special election to fill the Obama senate seat was fueled by a desire to see a U.S. Senator Mark Kirk.
Some back-story: Washington, D.C. might be a big city but it suffers from a rumor mill like any small town. Many times, rumors are around long enough and evidence points to them becoming assumptions.
Personally, I don’t care if Mark Kirk is homosexual or not. Anyone outraged by my even implying that he might be needs to relax. What I do care about is his enthusiasm for the advancement of “homosexual rights” – just like state Sen. Dan Rutherford (another would-be future state wide GOP candidate),
Therefore, Kirk is an exception to my “don’t ask, don’t tell” preference because we already know where he wants to lead.
One more point for additional clarification. If a current or would-be Republican leader in Illinois – man or woman – is cheating on their spouse, voters need to know that as well. It is a disqualification. Compromised people rarely show the kind of courage it takes to contest well-funded special interests that defend the failed status quo.
If Mark Kirk wants to run for the U.S. Senate, he should switch parties. As a Democrat, he can’t repeat the damage done to the GOP by Dennis Hastert both in Illinois and nationally.
I realize many of Mark Kirk’s votes in the U.S. House are the right votes, and he deserves credit for that. Maybe he’d make a good Blue Dog Democrat. I also respect his military service to the country.
Does this mean I support kicking him out of the party? No, actually, unless he actively seeks to do the party damage. To give you just one example, it would have been better if Florida Congressman Mark Foley had been a Democrat.
What about the Republican Party being a big tent party? Let me explain what “big tent” means. It means we need a big tent to hold a lot of people of many races and backgrounds – not of many political persuasions. The party exists to advance a principle based agenda outlined in the platform.
The Republican Party isn’t the party that’s confused about the sanctity of human life or human behavior, so Kirk isn’t the kind of leader the IL GOP or the national GOP needs.
