Are Trump and Cruz Being Disingenuous on Gay Marriage?

Every political campaign cycle - and in Virginia with its off cycle state elections, that means every year - LGBT Americans see their lives cynically used as political footballs as Republicans in particular strive to prostitute themselves to the Christofascists and ludicrously termed "people of faith." People of hate, bigotry and superstition might be a better phrase.  This year is proving to be no exception as all of the GOP presidential candidates make statements to appease the knuckle draggers.  The question is, what do these candidates really believe given their sometimes conflicting statements.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the perhaps disingenuous game being played by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as they seem to shift their statements depending upon the audience in front of them.  Personally, I do not trust either of them.  Here are article highlights:  

Despite the fact that the Republican candidates have been locked in a down-and-dirty, no-holds-barred, ugly-as-all-get-out primary season, an issue typically central to their party’s contests—and internal battles—has somehow avoided much scrutiny: Where do the GOP’s top presidential contenders stand on gay rights?

The last time a Republican won the White House, when George W. Bush snagged a re-election victory in 2004, opposition to same-sex marriage was central to the party’s identity.

But now, the GOP’s top contender avoids addressing the issue, and the candidate in a close second seems extraordinarily comfortable saying different things to different groups of would-be supporters.

Donald Trump, the frontrunner, has attended at least one same-sex wedding and publicly praised his acquaintance Elton John’s marriage to his male partner. And Ted Cruz, despite consistently voicing his opposition to federal protections for same-sex couples, has reportedly made off-the-record comments indicating that the issue isn’t actually that big of a priority for him.

That said, the Texas senator has made legal protections for businesses and individuals who don’t want to hire or serve same-sex couples a central part of his campaign. He regularly talks up his religious freedom focus on the stump, arguing that Christians in the U.S. are under attack.

Trump has telegraphed that he may sympathize with that view, indicating that he supports the First Amendment Defense Act, a bill that gay rights advocates say could provide cover for businesses to discriminate against LGBT people.

Trump has made a host of comments on the question of whether or not he supports the Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex couples to wed, and it’s given Log Cabin Republicans serious pause. The group put out a video last month highlighting the wide variety of statements he’s made on the subject. They include: that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, that evangelical Christians who oppose same-sex marriage rights can “trust” him on the issue, and that Americans need to come together.

“We’re going to bring people together. That’s your thing, and other people have their thing,” he told a New England Cable News reporter who asked him if he would advance gay rights. “We have to bring all people together.”

That hasn’t happened. At all. Instead, Trump has been resolutely obtuse about the issue—drawing condemnation from the anti-marriage-equality National Organization for Marriage (which endorsed Cruz), and bafflement from Log Cabin Republicans. 

Craffey said Aminoff [of the LA Log Cabin Reoublicans] told attendees that Cruz supported his decision to meet with them and said his campaign should be doing more to court LGBT Republicans’ votes. Aminoff didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story (and neither did the Trump or Cruz campaigns).

Craffey added that despite Cruz’s stated opposition to marriage equality—the candidate holds that individual states should be able to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex unions—he doesn’t think Cruz would do much about it as president.

“Ted Cruz wouldn’t be anti-gay, just hands off,” he said.

And he said he thinks Cruz is playing up that position to boost his primary prospects.

“If you want to make it through the primary, it’s like a necessary evil,” he added.

Penny Nance, who heads the socially conservative group Concerned Women for America and recently endorsed Cruz, said evangelical Christians need to worry more about their credibility on marriage than anything else.

“We have diluted marriage,” she said. “The divorce rates, the cohabitation rates in the church are very similar to everyone else’s, and so we’ve got to get our own act together. We don’t have the moral standing to talk about this issue if we’re not walking the walk ourselves.”

I trust neither of them and see electing a Democrat as the only safeguard against threats to LGBT rights and continued marriage equality.  As for the Log Cabin Republicans, I continue to view them as the equivalent of Jews joining Hitler's Nazi Party.

The Supreme Court Didn't Cure Republicans of Homophobia

As we see clerk's of court refusing to perform their duties and politicians - always Republicans - condemning gays and same sex marriage we continue to see hate and bigotry fueled by religion and a desperation on the part of Christofascists to impose their ugly religious beliefs on all.  Sadly, Republicans are only too happy to prostitute themselves to such selfish, self-centered, nasty individuals who have become a cancer within the Republican Party base.  Unless and until this ugly element is driven from the GOP, we can expect more homophobia and the dissemination of anti-gay lies.  A piece in The New Republic looks at the homophobia that continues to grip the GOP.  Here are excerpts:

It’s tempting to imagine that the abrupt end to the fight for marriage equality will ultimately prove to be a godsend for frustrated Republicans. Same-sex marriage enjoys the backing of a huge, youthful political movement, and, before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide, it was becoming the kind of issue that could seal a politician’s fate with a huge swath of voters. In settling the debate by fiat, the Court might also have saved Republicans from having to wage the alienating opposition to marriage equality for several more years.

Though the Court had the power to end that fight mercifully, it could do nothing about the fact that many conservatives opposed marriage equality because they believe gays and lesbians are inherently defective . . . 

If you believe that banning gay people from Boy Scouts “protects children,” then you either believe discredited caricatures of gay men as child predators or you believe homosexuality and homosexuals are unsavory things that children should be “protected” from categorically, like drug addiction or verbal abuse.

The movement to make the Boy Scouts a more tolerant organization may not be as large or public facing as the movement to force states to recognize same-sex marriages. But it’s still a big staging ground for the more diffuse fight over how our society should treat gays and lesbians generally. And because the question at hand doesn’t touch on the nature of the Boy Scouts as an institution, it’s much harder for conservatives to disguise deprecatory views of LGBT people themselves behind an alleged concern for institutional continuity.

Which is all to say, Republican politicians will still have plenty of opportunities to treat gays and lesbians like aberrant miscreants. . . . the issue won’t disappear anytime soon.

Sadly, the author is correct - the issue of Republicans demonizing gays will not go away anytime soon.  Not until more of the population walks away from religion and being anti-gay becomes a sure fire loser in general elections.   That tipping point is getting closer, but we are not there yet - or anywhere close in red states.

Will A Nationwide Gay Marriage Ruling Trigger a New Culture War

A piece in The Economist ask the question of whether a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down same sex marriage bans will lead to a new round in the so-called culture wars.  Specifically, will such a ruling have wider repercussions that impact "Christian" organization run hospitals, schools, etc. - many of which compete for business with secular run businesses and institutions - that are far removed from religious worship that was what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the penned the Bill of Rights.  The author of the article advises that "liberals be magnanimous" in their victor.  I disagree completely.  If you are running a hospital or other business that competes with the private sector, you choices should be either (i) comply with non-discrimination laws and regulations or (ii) lose your tax-exempt status.  The rest of us should not be indirectly underwriting discriminatory institutions.  Here are article highlights:

Ahead of this summer’s Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage—which could legalise such weddings in all 50 states—a new “gotcha” question has emerged on the 2016 campaign trail. Republican candidates are asked: “Would you attend the same-sex nuptials of a loved one or friend?” It says a lot about fast-changing public opinion that so many say they would, even if some doubt that gay people have a constitutional right to wed.

Ambitious politicians sense a shift in the national mood that runs ahead of dry poll numbers. Many Americans still tell pollsters that they oppose same-sex marriage in principle. Republicans, old people, evangelical Christians and non-whites are particularly likely to have qualms (just 42% of blacks support such unions, for instance). Nonetheless, many of those same sceptics would think a politician weirdly judgmental and unkind to snub a friend or relative’s gay wedding—not least because a growing number of Americans realise that they have gay nephews and neighbours of their own. Put another way, many Americans are ready for a truce in the culture wars that surround gay rights.

Alas, at the very moment when the public seems ready to move on, there are signs that gay rights could spark a new round of cultural combat.

A warning call was delivered on May 4th by John Inazu of Washington University School of Law in St Louis, at the Faith Angle Forum, a twice-yearly gathering of academics, religious leaders and political journalists. A shadow hangs over traditional Christian colleges, non-profit institutions (including some large hospitals) and businesses run by those whose beliefs lead them to see gay marriage as a grave sin, notes Mr Inazu. That shadow could be termed the “Bob Jones Question”—referring to a private religious university in South Carolina whose leaders barred interracial dating or marriage until 2000, citing their interpretation of the Bible. That cost Bob Jones University its tax-exempt status, a decision upheld in 1983 by the Supreme Court.

[Albert Mohler] jumped on two other exchanges involving the government’s representative in court, Solicitor-General Donald Verrilli. One involved the question of whether religious schools offering married quarters would be forced to offer such housing to same-sex couples. That depends on future anti-discrimination laws, came the answer. Then a conservative justice, Samuel Alito, cited Bob Jones University and asked Mr Verrilli if a college that opposed same-sex marriage might lose its tax-exempt status. Depending on specifics in future cases, “It is going to be an issue,” the solicitor-general replied. That not only alarms folk like Mr Mohler. It makes some Republicans livid. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas talks of a “liberal fascism” attacking those who follow the Bible. 

Businesses that refuse service to gay weddings inspire comparisons with Jim Crow-era segregated lunch counters. By loudly supporting them, conservatives have lost potential allies. Most black Protestants disapprove of gay marriage, for instance, but six in ten of them told a 2014 Pew poll that, regardless of religious beliefs, businesses should be required to serve same-sex couples.

It would help if more Republicans were willing to pass basic laws protecting gay people from discrimination in states which lack them. At the same time, Democrats and their allies could treat faith with more respect. . . . . If the summer brings the nationwide legalisation of gay marriage, liberals should be magnanimous in victory.

As noted above, I strenuously disagree.  Conservative Christians have made life a living hell for gays and others for decades - if not centuries.  It's about time the undeserved deference and misguided respect cease once and for all.  It is far past time that these modern day Pharisees comply with all non-discrimination or lose their tax-exempt status.  If they want to operate as a discriminatory private club, then they need to cease receiving indirect taxpayer support.  It's really that simple.  

Yet Another “Christian” Mega Church Pastor Calls On Gays To Be “Put To Death”

Pastor Robby Gallaty - How long until his caught sucking cock or molesting a child?

While ISIS is executing those accused of being gay, American imams  "Christian" pastors are calling for gays to be put to death.   The identity of mindset between the brutal leaders of ISIS and this "men of gad" is chilling and one can only wonder when some cretins in the pews will decide to act on the hate spewing from far too many pulpits across America.  The ultimate evil is, of course, neither Islam or Christianity, but religion itself which has been a force of division and hatred and violence throughout the centuries.  Why anyone gives deference or a shred of respect to hate mongers in the pulpit is mind boggling.  Here are highlights from Addicting Info.org:

Another day, another “persecuted Christian.” As everyone knows, gay-hating Christians seem to cherry pick what it is they want to believe in the bible, and unfortunately it always comes back around to just simply hating someone for being who they were born to be. This is again evident in Tennessee in which a pastor in a Baptist mega church proclaimed that homosexuals “must be put to death”  because it’s what God would want and it is what he commands us to do.

The pastor, Robby Gallaty, told the church-goers that discrimination against gays should never stop, and that death is the only way to punish those who are “infected” with sin:

“God said that the sins of the people had infected the very land in which they live. So what happens to people who engage in this activity, this sexual immoral activity? Go to Leviticus 20, God gives us the punishment for engaging in these sins… ‘If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable thing. They must be put to death. And their blood is on their own hands.”

And why should innocent gays and lesbians be put to death? Well, according to Gallaty, they have made the choice to be gay, thus rebelling against God’s plan. Touching on the comparisons some Christians make in to racist beliefs and homophobic beliefs, Gallaty responded just as you’d think; insulting those who can see a legitimate comparison between two hatreds

[A]nother mega church moocher who will peddle anything to keep banking off stupid people. All while being a tax exempted organization.

As he preaches the genocide of gays, I wonder if he will touch on the fact that he sinning as he wears a pair of denim jeans and a cotton shirt. He probably won’t though because that doesn’t count in his tiny world of knowledge.

 Conservative Christians are NOT nice or decent people and the rest of society needs to recognize this reality and treat this "godly Christians" as utter social pariahs and outcasts.

New College Freshman Poll: 81.5% Support Gay Marriage; 27.5% Claim No Religious Affiliation

A new American Freshman Survey,  in which UCLA researchers polled over 150,000 incoming freshmen at 227 colleges and universities has good news or bad news depending upon one's perspective.  If you support equality and the removal of religion from public policy, the survey results are welcome news.  For the Christofascists and their political whore in the Republican Party, the findings ought to be setting off alarm bells .that their agenda is looking more and more like the Titanic at 11:36PM on the night of April 14, 1912.  The survey found that 27.5% of incoming freshmen (1st years at UVA) claimed no religious affiliation whatsoever.  Meanwhile, 81% support same sex marriage.  Here are some survey findings:

The CIRP Freshman Survey has consistently asked students to identify their religious preference since 1971, and more students than ever are selecting “none.” Figure 4 shows that, in 2014, more than one-quarter of incoming freshmen (27.5%) selected “none,” a one-year increase of 2.9 percentage points from 2013, and an increase of over 12 percentage points from the 1971 value (15.4%). . . . These numbers correspond with a recent Pew Research Center survey that found that 29% of Millennials are unaffiliated with any religion, which compares to 21% of Generation Xers, 16% of Baby Boomers, and 9% of the “Silent” Generation (Pew, 2014).

On gay marriage, the figures are even more devastating for the Christofascists/GOP:

The survey last asked about same-sex marriage in 2012. In the interim, support for same-sex couples having the legal right to marry has increased 6.5 percentage points to 81.5%. This increase covers a span of time where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s state ban on same-sex marriage. Additionally, since these Supreme Court decisions, state-level same-sex marriage bans have fallen across the country in U.S. Circuit and District courts; as of January 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up four pending cases from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Figure 10 breaks support for same-sex marriage down by political ideology. The findings show that only students who identify as “far right” do not support same-sex marriage. Just 44.3% of students identified as “far right” either “agreed somewhat” or “agreed strongly” that same-sex couples should have the legal right to marry. This figure contrasts with 56.6% of “conservative” students, 84.7% of “middle-of-the-road” students, 93.9% of “liberal” students, and 90.5% of “far left” students. It is clear that same-sex marriage is no longer an issue for the vast majority of entering college freshmen.

 

An Evangelical Changes His Mind On Gays

As noted briefly before, there are some major chasms developing within the Evangelical Christian circles as some see the hand writing on the wall:  Homophobia and anti-gay animus will be among the factors that lead to the long term death of Christianity in America. Naturally, the justification for those changing their positions are not stated so directly.  But those outside of self-loath closet case circles and the most ignorant elements of the Christofascist base do seem to know that they are on the wrong side of history - just as their fore bearers were on the wrong side of the issue of slavery and later segregation.  Andrew Sullivan looks at David Gushee, one of the most prominent evangelical theologians to jump the anti-gay jihad ship.  Here are highlights:

We’ve featured the work of Matthew Vines many times before, and want to highlight a speech given at a conference recently held by his organization, The Reformation Project. A keynote speaker, David Gushee, one of the foremost evangelical ethicists in the United States, used the occasion to announce his support for the full-inclusion of LGBT Christians in the Church. The above video of Gushee’s remarks is longer than we usually post, but it’s worth watching in full. (You can read a transcript of his remarks here.) For a sense of why this matters, Jonathan Merritt sketches Gushee’s place in the evangelical world:

It is difficult to overstate the potential impact of Gushee’s defection. His Christian ethics textbook, “Kingdom Ethics,” co-authored with the late Glen Stassen, is widely respected and was named a 2004 Christianity Today book of the year. He serves as theologian-in-residence for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a coalition of 15 theological schools, 150 ministries, and 1,800 Baptist churches nationwide.

While other pro-LGBT Christian activists — including Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network and Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” — have been dismissed in some circles as wet-behind-the-ears youngsters without formal theological training, Gushee, 52, is a scholar with impeccable credentials. He can add intellectual heft to what has largely been a youth-led movement, and is not someone who can be easily dismissed.

Gushee summarizes his approach to the issue this way:

Since the 1960s, when the gay rights movement began in America, Christians and their leaders have struggled to figure out how to respond to the growing tolerance of same-sex relationships. Most in Christianity have responded by offering endless debates over how to interpret that handful of biblical passages. Books erupted. Congregations fought. Denominations split.

For me, the answer to this debate has become simple: There is a sexual-minority population of about 5 percent of the human family that has received contempt and discrimination for centuries. In Christendom, the sexual ethics based in those biblical passages metastasized into a hardened attitude against sexual- and gender-identity minorities, bristling with bullying and violence. This contempt is in the name of God, the most powerful kind there is in the world. I now believe that the traditional interpretation of the most cited passages is questionable and that all that parsing of Greek verbs has distracted attention from the primary moral obligation taught by Jesus — to love our neighbors as ourselves, especially our most vulnerable neighbors. I also now believe that while any progress toward more humane treatment of LGBT people is good progress, we need to reconsider the entire body of biblical interpretation and tradition related to this issue.

Put simply, it finally became clear to me that I must side with those who were being treated with contempt, just as I hope I would have sided with Jews in the Nazi era and with African Americans during the civil rights years.

 Ouch!  Albert Mohler, Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Maggie Gallagher and other purveyors of anti-gay hatred must be  experiencing spittle fleck convulsions over Gushee's statements.

Study: Marriage Leads to Improved Health for Same-Sex Headed Families

The Christofascists and their simpering political whores in the Republican Party who oppose same sex marriage always claim to be "concerned about the children" - even as they are only too willing to throw the children of same sex couples onto the trash heap along with their gay or lesbian parents.  Actions speak louder than words and by their opposition to marriage equality these individuals and "family values" organizations demonstrate that they truly do not give a damn about the children of same sex couples.  Now, a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine finds that marriage equality has positive effects on public health by improving access to healthcare for same-sex couples and their children and reducing stresses.  Thus, in reality, the Christofascists are harming the children.  Deliberately harming them.  Here are highlights on the study via GayRVA:

 [M]arriage equality has positive effects on public health by improving access to healthcare for same-sex couples and their children, and reducing the risks of anxiety, depression and other mental health problems when a couple’s relationship is not legally recognized.

According to the report, public health research has suggested not only that discriminatory environments and bans on same-sex marriage are detrimental to health but also that legalizing same-sex marriage (among other policies expanding protections) contributes to better health for LGBT people.

Legalizing same-sex marriage also improves access to health insurance for LGBT people, the report finds:

About 55% of Americans are covered through their own or a family member’s employer-sponsored health insurance plan, but many employers do not extend coverage to same-sex partners or children of same-sex partners. Even among companies with more than 200 employees, only 42% offer health benefits to same-sex partners, according to the 2012 Employer Health Benefits Survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.

Thus, adults in same-sex relationships are less likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have health insurance and may therefore delay or forgo necessary medical care. When states legalize same-sex marriage, some workplaces that offer employer-sponsored insurance are required to treat married same-sex couples just as they treat married opposite-sex couples.

Therefore, disparities in insurance coverage are narrower in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions that guarantee complete spousal rights to same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage also strengthens access to health insurance for the 220,000 children who are being raised by same-sex parents in the United States.

[C]hildren with same-sex parents are less likely than children with married opposite-sex parents to have private health insurance. These disparities diminish when LGBT families live in states with marriage equality or laws supporting adoptions for same-sex parents.

The take away?  When Victoria Cobb, Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher bloviate about caring about "the children" know that they are lying.

Southern Baptist Convention Condemn Boy Scouts Policy on Gays

Proving yet again that it is rushing backward in time and embracing more and more simple minded ignorance, the Southern Baptist Convention formally denounced the Boy Scouts of America for changing its policy prohibiting gays scouts.  One can only wonder when the SBC will reaffirm support for slavery  - the issue that brought it into existence in the first place.  The batshitery, ignorance and outright bigotry is stunning and as a Chicago Tribune piece indicates, some of the spittle flecked, knuckle dragging Neanderthals of the SBS are right here in nearby Newport News, Virginia.  Such folks prefer to cling to supposed Bible inerrancy rather than think for themselves or admit that much of their lives have been based on untrue myths and witch doctor like hocus pocus.    Here are highlights from the Tribune story:

The Southern Baptist Convention on Wednesday voted to voice opposition to the Boy Scouts of America decision to admit gay members, saying that homosexual conduct is contrary to a scout's oath to do his duty to God.

The Southern Baptists, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, approved a non-binding resolution opposing the policy at its annual convention in Houston. The resolution requires no action by member churches but leaves them to decide individually whether to stop sponsoring scout troops.

"I am very sad to say that it seems as though (Boy Scouts) are moving away from the principles they were founded upon," Wes Taylor, pastor at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia, said during the debate at the annual convention. "It is an environment just fertile for young boys to be exposed to something that is ungodly and unacceptable."

Leaders at the convention said the resolution was not aimed at the boys, but at the organization they said was opening the door for homosexual scout leaders and creating an unhealthy environment.

"This (BSA) decision politicizes the membership, and it also brings a sexual dimension that wasn't there before," said Steve Lemke, provost of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and chairman of Southern Baptist Convention Resolutions Committee.

Some at the Southern Baptist conference said the church should embrace gay members of scouting and guide them toward a more Christian life.   One pastor argued that a young boy who claims to be gay is most likely the victim of abuse or otherwise needs guidance, and that the church or scouts should not abandon him.

Some religious organizations have accepted the Boy Scouts' new policy. The Mormon Church, the largest sponsor of scouting troops nationwide with about 430,000 youth members, expressed its support. The United Methodist Church, the second-largest sponsor, also plans to continue its role in scouting.

Two things to note.  One, gay boys are still alleged to be victims of sexual abuse rather than admit some of us are born gay and made by God that way.  These cretins will go to any lengths to avoid admitting the Bible is flat out wrong.  Second, for those who want to bring gays toward a "more Christian life," in the SBC that equates to embracing hate, bigotry and a rejection of modern knowledge.  Why not simply propose giving boys lobotomies?

New Zealand Set to Approve Gay Marriage

While the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court likely ponder how to dodge having to rule directly on gay marriage on a broad scale, another ally of America is poised to approve gay marriage through the legislative process - something that will never happen in Virginia until the power of the Christofascists at The Family Foundation is broken and/or the GOP ceases to be a major political party.   TVNZ looks at developments in New Zealand where gay marriages could start in less than six months.  Here are highlights:

Politicians look set to make history this week with gay marriage likely to become legal.
However, the first wedding will not take place until mid-August.

Labour MP Louisa Wall's marriage equality member's bill is due to have its third reading in Parliament on Wednesday night.   The bill passed its committee stages with 77 votes to 43 last month and little change was anticipated for the final vote.

Big crowds, including a few celebrities, were expected to be in Parliament's public gallery to witness the vote.

The passing of the legislation was historic and would remove the last remaining legal inequalities for homosexual people, Hague said.  "After this bill passes we will effectively have equality under the law, which is one of the basic human rights."

Viewing parties and celebrations were planned to be held around the country if the bill does pass, Hague said.

The Conservative Party and lobby group Family First are both running publicity campaigns against same-sex marriage.  Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie wants people to sign a "marriage pledge" saying they will not vote for an MP or political party that supports Wall's bill.

Full equality under the law.  Something America and Virginia claim to honor yet still fail to deliver.

 

How the GOP's Homophobia is Hurting It Nationally

As the prior post noted, polls show that a majority of blacks, Hispanics and younger voters support gay marriage and even in Virginia, polls show super majorities of voters supporting employment non-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens.  Yet the GOP, both and at the national level, continues to prostitute itself to the Christofascist elements of the GOP party base - even though doing so is harming the party's competitiveness at a national level.  In 2012, hate group leader Tony Perkins - who virtually personifies anti-gay animus - played a major role in drafting the GOP party platform.  It doesn't get much more homophobic.  A piece in The Daily Beast reviews how the GOP's continued prostitution of itself to the gay haters and professional Christian hate merchants is harming the party's national prospects.  Here are highlights:

Republicans have just founded a new organization to groom minorities in the party. The GOP will never rebound, explains the group’s chairman, African-American former Republican congressman J.C. Watts, “until you get people that look like me in the trenches.”

Republicans probably overestimate the traction they’ll get from changing the color and accents of their pitchmen. There’s something deeply patronizing about the GOP’s assumption that while its voters are motivated by ideology, Latino and black Democrats act merely on ethnic or racial affinity. The harsh truth is that the single biggest reason Latinos and African-Americans vote Democratic is that they mostly agree with Democrats that government should do more for people in need, even if that means less military spending and higher taxes.

[T]he GOP’s new cult of racial and ethnic diversity bespeaks some recognition of the way America has changed. Where the party remains in deep denial is on the question of sexual orientation. For the Republican Party to truly compete in 21st-century America, it’s going to need more than merely black and brown spokespeople. It’s going to need openly gay and lesbian ones, too.

When it comes to accepting lesbians and gays, today’s Republican Party lags decades behind the Democrats. .  .  .  .  In today’s GOP, by contrast, not much has changed since 1977. Gays now serve openly in the Marine Corps, but being a gay or lesbian politician in the GOP still generally requires staying in the closet—at least until you’re outed in some humiliating scandal.

It’s easy to see why the GOP is not searching for openly gay and lesbian spokespeople in the same way it is hungering for black and Hispanic ones. Being a prominent African-American or Latino Republican may be tricky, but it doesn’t require embracing a party that explicitly opposes your right to get married, or to be free from various other forms of discrimination.

The problem is that the GOP’s problems are not just ethnic, they’re generational, too. Since younger Americans of virtually every ethnic and racial group are far more supportive of gay rights than are their elders, stitching together a multi-ethnic coalition against gay rights means building a coalition of the old. Even more important, for many younger Americans, supporting gay equality has become a symbol of modernity, as obvious and uncontroversial as knowing how to use Facebook. As Robert Draper noted in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, when male, 20-something Ohio swing voters were asked to describe the GOP, they volunteered words like “out of touch,” “hateful” and “1950s.” The party’s “brand,” one young Republican pollster told Draper, is “that we’re not in the 21st century.”

To overcome this generational disconnect, Republicans need to embrace gay marriage now rather than continuing to play catch-up as it becomes a fait accompli in more and more of the country. And they need to seek out gay and lesbian politicians who can personify the GOP’s new pro-gay rights stance.

To embrace gay rights, Republicans don’t need to abandon cultural conservatism. To the contrary, an unthinking, bigoted opposition to gay equality is preventing Republicans from fashioning a more meaningful culturally conservative message for today’s age. The real threats to traditional values in America today don’t come from committed, monogamous gays and lesbians.

Eventually, the Republican Party is likely to move in this direction, irrespective of the conflict it causes with the party’s Christian evangelical base. The sooner it does so, the faster it will make itself nationally competitive again.

The piece is, in my opinion, on point.  Unfortunately, I do not see the GOP changing given the way in which the Christofascists have taken over the GOP grass roots.  Added to the mix is that gay bashing is a prime money raising part of the professional Christian propaganda machine.  If the gay bogey man goes away, many of the Christofascist hate merchants might have to get real jobs.

NBA Star Comes Out in Support of Gay Marriage - With His Two Moms

The Christofascists and hate groups like Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage and, here in Virginia, The Family Foundation, constantly strive to depict LGBT individuals as sick, disturbed, promiscuous, and a threat to children.  Its an insidious campaign and has nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and everything to do with inciting anti-gay animus.  The truth, of course, is very different from the picture our enemies like to portray.  Many of us in the LGBT community have children - children who are doing well and have not suffered in any way from having gay parents.  Children who often become strong advocated for gay rights and marriage equality.  The last such individual to come out and speak up in favor of marriage equality is Denver Nuggets power forward Kenneth Faried (pictured above with his two mothers) who is starring in a moving new video endorsing civil unions legislation that is before the Colorado legislature.  Salon looks at Faried's support for equality.  Here are excerpts:

Kenneth “the Manimal” Faried is a Denver Nuggets power forward whose high-energy play and extravagant dreadlocks have made him a darling of the basketball intelligentsia. He’s also the star of a moving new video endorsing civil unions for One Colorado, a statewide advocacy organization dedicated to protecting the rights of the LGBT community.

Faried appears with his two mothers, Carol and Waudda (both of whom are painfully, adorably shy), and offers a few stories about how they met and the kinds of adversities they’ve had to overcome as a family. Fairly or not, the NBA’s players have earned something of a reputation in recent years for homophobia, which makes the video’s message that much more refreshing. “Nobody can ever tell me that I can’t have two mothers,” says Faried. “Because I really do.”

When the Christofascists attack gay and lesbian parents, they attack our children as well.  Mt three children haven't let that reality go unnoticed and all three of them are militantly in favor of gay rights.  And like so many others in their age group, they have largely walked away from institutional religion motivated in large part with the the term "Christian" too often being synonymous with homophobe and anti- bigot.   The all too typical silence of the "good Christians" in opposition to the Christofascist hate merchants is, in my view, slowly killing Christianity as a whole in this country. 

Azariah Southworth: Why I outed a Christian Star

I have long advocated "outing" Christianist and Republican figures who disseminate an anti-gay message while seeking or engaging in gay sex themselves.  For me, it's all about exposing lies and hypocrisy.  If individuals want to torture themselves and live a lie, that's their personal choice.  But the second they start preaching or voting against LGBT individuals while living a lie, then they have placed a bull's eye on their own backs and deserve whatever they receive.  Yes, it's a harsh approach, but these individuals are damaging lives while being liars and hypocrites.  And for that, they deserve to be exposed for the frauds that they are.  In keeping with this view, I helped Mike Rogers expose former Congressman Ed Schrock from the Virginia 2nd congressional district - who had the second most anti-gay voting record in the House at the time - for the fraud that he was.  Did I feel guilt and remorse at times since I knew Schrock personally?  Most definitely.  But I believed an even bigger evil would be wrought if Schrock was not exposed and he was allowed to continue to damage LGBT lives as he secretly sought out gay sex trysts on the side.  Thus, I identify with Azariah Southworth (pictured above at right) who recently outed evangelical writer Jonathan Merritt (pictured above left), son of the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention.  A piece in Salon by Azariah looks at how and why he felt compelled to out Merritt.  It's worth a read and here are some highlights:

Ever since I outed an up-and-coming evangelical leader named Jonathan Merritt on my blog on July 23, one sentence has been running through my mind: I might have destroyed his life.

It’s not all the angry emails that made me doubt myself – although some have been wildly disapproving. One, from a longtime supporter, said, “Your actions are arrogant, insensitive, and nothing more. There is nothing brave, honorable or noble about what you’ve done. I am parting ways from you ashamed of you and what you have become.” Others called me a self-promoter and a bully. But their criticism is not what bothers me. As RuPaul once said, “What people say about me behind my back is none of my business.”

No, what bothers me, what overwhelms me with guilt, is the concern for what I’ve done to a person I care about. But then I think of how hypocrisy must be exposed. And I think of this: The truth sets you free.

Jonathan and I exchanged a few emails, and a year later, in April 2010, we exchanged phone numbers. One night, we started text messaging one another. At this point, I perceived Jonathan to be a heterosexual male. Male he was, but not heterosexual. Jonathan’s text messages became flirtatious, and I became confused.

By the end of the night my lips were raw and chapped from his unshaven face. I felt a little dirty and used, but more than anything I felt bad for him. I knew the guilt that would ensue for him. I’ve been there. It’s so freeing when you connect with another gay person before you’re “out” but when it’s over, you reenter that world of secrets and lies. You’re surrounded once more by the immense social pressure to look and act a certain way within your faith community. Being gay makes you feel so alone. It makes you feel like you don’t belong, like you’ll never escape the torment and spiritual violence imposed on you by bad and broken theology.

Outing Jonathan was not an easy decision. I mulled it over for more than a year and discussed it with friends. Those conversations always ended in, “Yeah, it’s probably not a good idea.” So, what changed my mind?

I was tired of the lies. I was tired of hearing Jonathan say that being gay is not “God’s best.” Meanwhile he enjoys the company of men. Jonathan’s approach to LGBT people and issues may be less extreme than that of the late Jerry Falwell, but in the end the results and message are the same: Your sexual orientation is a sin and you need to change with God’s help. It’s all lies — and the conversation not only needs to change but the leaders as well.

I’m tired of my humanity as a gay man being invalidated by hypocritical leaders like Jonathan, who then expect my support in return.

But I do feel conflict. I do feel a sense of guilt. And that’s because I do have one regret, which is not discussing it with Jonathan first. That was wrong of me. If I had to do this all over again, I would have contacted him first and then decided how to handle the situation from there based on his reaction. (Merritt has admitted in an interview that “we had physical contact that went beyond the bounds of friendship.”)

Outing a person is complex. There is no blanket formula for how and when and why to do it. I don’t think it’s right in every situation. If someone is in the closet and they’re not making an effort to demonize LGBT people, then I say, leave them alone. But if someone is using a public platform to discuss these issues, and doing that while hiding behind a false identity that ultimately destroys the foundation of the arguments they’re making, then, yes, a full disclosure of that person’s false identity is in order

I recommend reading the rest of the piece.  In the instance of Ed Schrock - who I knew personally from GOP circles back in my days as a Republican - I did contact Schrock and warn him of what would be forthcoming if the hypocrisy continued.  He even called me on his cell phone from the House of Representatives.  His ultimate response?  I was contacted by his top aide and threatened with serious harm (I have contemporaneous e-mails still in my possession) .  The arrogance and abuse of his office certainly made moving forward with Mike Rogers easier.  But it did not totally take away the sadness from what I set in motion.  Ultimately, it came down to harming one lying hypocritical individual versus perhaps making things better for many.  I chose the hope of helping make a difference for many over the hypocritical individual.  I can relate to what Southworth felt he needed to do.