Overcoming issue attention deficit disorder: On so-called “homosexual rights”

If we’re going to win public support for the policies that work best, it’s time for some Republicans to give up their dream to live in a Twitter world. Twitter, as us middle aged folks are learning, is described by Wikipedia as –

“…a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read each others’ updates, known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the author’s profile page and delivered to other users – known as followers – who have subscribed to them.”

I’m all for succinctness, but 140 characters is a bit limiting if you want to actually learn. Brevity comes in public debate after a speaker or writer comprehends the fundamentals of human nature, economics, and the specifics of whichever policy area is under consideration.

Instead, too many people in Republican politics seem to prefer to read headlines or watch the Daily Show or Sean Hannity to get their understanding of politics and the issues.

Today I’m going to review the article, “Republican skeletons in the closet” by Laurie Higgins. She begins her op ed with this clear statement:

“Now is the time for those running for public office in Illinois to come clean about the skeletons, or mistresses, or prostitutes, or congressional pages, or homosexual partners lurking in their closets. The past few years have been a veritable anti-treasure trove of political closet cleanings, and many Illinoisans are sick of them.”

That needs no explanation. She then writes (emphasis is mine):

“Those who aid and abet in the sexual immorality and deceit of public servants do neither the public nor political parties any favors.

Some in the formerly grand Republican Party exalt candidates they view as moderate, which translated means those who support the destruction of incipient life and those who affirm homosexual unions. The new ‘moderate,’ however, is yesterday’s immoderate, perverse, radical, and subversive. Immoderateness, perversion, radicalness, and subversiveness are moderate only to relativists-to those who believe there are no fixed, immutable, eternal, objective truths.”

You squishy Republicans might want to read those bolded sentences again.

Laurie Higgins also writes (again, emphasis added):

“Conservatives who have bought the lie that the homosexuality of a candidate is irrelevant have clearly also bought the lie that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race or biological sex, both claims of which are increasingly rejected both within and without the homosexual communities.”

Again, please re-read that sentence and let it sink in.

“Rather, same-sex desire and volitional homosexual acts are analogous to polyamorous desire and volitional polyamorous acts, all of which are legitimate conditions for moral assessment and moral disapproval. Most voters would want to know if a candidate embraced polyamory; most voters would reject a candidate for his affirmation of polyamory and his engagement in polyamorous behavior; and those who rejected such a candidate would not be vilified for their political decision or called poly-haters and polyphobes.”

The un-seriousness of the vast majority of Republican politicians extends well beyond the social issues. A party that held both the Congress and the White House yet couldn’t get tax simplification passed – the most popular bipartisan issue there is – clearly needs a Renaissance.