Bryan Fischer
On Richard Grenell: homosexuality is not a conservative value
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Richard Grenell, the out, loud and proud homosexual crusader for same-sex marriage, resigned from the Romney campaign because pro-family voices rightly rang the alarm bells about the signals Romney was sending with this hire.
Yesterday, Grenell spoke for the first time since his resignation, and complaned that he was being unfairly criticized by both the right and the left. His complaint boiled down to one thing: both sides were saying you can't be gay and conservative.
On Fox News, he griped, "There are people on the far right that don't like the fact that I'm gay, and there are people on the far left that don't like the fact that I'm a conservative. I'm comfortably in the middle."
Perhaps surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with the left on this one. They are dead right when they say you cannot be a homosexual and a conservative.
This is for one simple reason: homosexuality is not a conservative value.
It is a libertarian value, and a liberal value, but it is not a conservative one.
Libertarians and liberals, when it comes to social issues, are in the "anything goes" camp. They reject the whole concept of ordered liberty in which a society is built by people who exercise self-restraint and channel potentially destructive impulses into marriage, family and work.
They believe in the utterly foolish and naive concept that sexual misconduct is a "victimless crime." Tell that to Tiger Woods' wife and to the wives of the randy Secret Service agents who brought back career-ending shame and who knows how many STDs from their cavorting with prostitutes in Colombia. Tell that to a homosexual who gets life-threatening HIV/AIDS from a sexual partner and as a result may be destined for an early grave. There is no such thing as a vicitmless crime.
Conservatism encourages moral restraint and self-control. Libertarianism, on the other hand, encourages the "If it feels good, do it" lunacy of the 70s. These are conflicting and incompatible views of moral responsibility.
The Founders were decidedly conservative on moral values, not libertarian. John Adams famously said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
It should be noted that my complaint against Grenell was not so much about his sexual preference but his homosexual activism. If he hadn't been out and proud, nobody would ahve known what his sexual preference was and nobody would care.
But he flaunted his non-normative sexuality and his relationship with a gay partner, and as recently as a month before his hire had been haranguing Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart for dining with President Obama but not demanding the president's support for homosexual marriage. He was not just a homosexual activist, he was a same-sex marriage crusader.
Richard Grenell's proper political home is with the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party. He should be encouraged to go to his political home and leave off the effort to corrupt the social conservativism of the GOP.
I am an economic libertarian, as all conservatives ought to be, but a social conservative, as all members of the Republican Party ought to be.
Whatever else Grenell is, he is not a social conservative and therefore should have no place in the campaign or the party of a candidate who claims to be about protecting the institution of marriage and the family.
The bottom line is that the GOP needs to make up its mind. Is it libertarian or conservative on social issues? The increasing accomodation of ruling class Republicans to the tiny two percent of the population who practice unnatural sexual behavior will be the undoing of the party. Are they truly willing to risk the future of their political party by cravenly capitulating to a whiny, noisy, hateful and demanding sliver of the American people?
If the GOP does not take a firm stand against the normalizing of homosexual behavior, it will squander the political opportunity that has been granted them by the most dangerous and incompetent president in American history.
Word to the GOP: find your moral compass, lads, before it's too late.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
May 24, 2012
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Richard Grenell, the out, loud and proud homosexual crusader for same-sex marriage, resigned from the Romney campaign because pro-family voices rightly rang the alarm bells about the signals Romney was sending with this hire.
Yesterday, Grenell spoke for the first time since his resignation, and complaned that he was being unfairly criticized by both the right and the left. His complaint boiled down to one thing: both sides were saying you can't be gay and conservative.
On Fox News, he griped, "There are people on the far right that don't like the fact that I'm gay, and there are people on the far left that don't like the fact that I'm a conservative. I'm comfortably in the middle."
Perhaps surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with the left on this one. They are dead right when they say you cannot be a homosexual and a conservative.
This is for one simple reason: homosexuality is not a conservative value.
It is a libertarian value, and a liberal value, but it is not a conservative one.
Libertarians and liberals, when it comes to social issues, are in the "anything goes" camp. They reject the whole concept of ordered liberty in which a society is built by people who exercise self-restraint and channel potentially destructive impulses into marriage, family and work.
They believe in the utterly foolish and naive concept that sexual misconduct is a "victimless crime." Tell that to Tiger Woods' wife and to the wives of the randy Secret Service agents who brought back career-ending shame and who knows how many STDs from their cavorting with prostitutes in Colombia. Tell that to a homosexual who gets life-threatening HIV/AIDS from a sexual partner and as a result may be destined for an early grave. There is no such thing as a vicitmless crime.
Conservatism encourages moral restraint and self-control. Libertarianism, on the other hand, encourages the "If it feels good, do it" lunacy of the 70s. These are conflicting and incompatible views of moral responsibility.
The Founders were decidedly conservative on moral values, not libertarian. John Adams famously said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
It should be noted that my complaint against Grenell was not so much about his sexual preference but his homosexual activism. If he hadn't been out and proud, nobody would ahve known what his sexual preference was and nobody would care.
But he flaunted his non-normative sexuality and his relationship with a gay partner, and as recently as a month before his hire had been haranguing Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart for dining with President Obama but not demanding the president's support for homosexual marriage. He was not just a homosexual activist, he was a same-sex marriage crusader.
Richard Grenell's proper political home is with the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party. He should be encouraged to go to his political home and leave off the effort to corrupt the social conservativism of the GOP.
I am an economic libertarian, as all conservatives ought to be, but a social conservative, as all members of the Republican Party ought to be.
Whatever else Grenell is, he is not a social conservative and therefore should have no place in the campaign or the party of a candidate who claims to be about protecting the institution of marriage and the family.
The bottom line is that the GOP needs to make up its mind. Is it libertarian or conservative on social issues? The increasing accomodation of ruling class Republicans to the tiny two percent of the population who practice unnatural sexual behavior will be the undoing of the party. Are they truly willing to risk the future of their political party by cravenly capitulating to a whiny, noisy, hateful and demanding sliver of the American people?
If the GOP does not take a firm stand against the normalizing of homosexual behavior, it will squander the political opportunity that has been granted them by the most dangerous and incompetent president in American history.
Word to the GOP: find your moral compass, lads, before it's too late.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
