Romney, Republicans and Gay Rights

Even though I reject the notion of single-issue politics, I still cannot understand the concept of gay republicans. Considering the fact that the Democratic party has always had influential fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks, and both pro and anti adherents on every social policy question, why would a gay person stick with a party that does not want him, that doesn't respect him and, in some cases, abhors him?  A gay man will bring Democrats over to his way of thinking about other issues a long time before he will bring Republicans over to his ideas about gay rights.

The case of Richard Grenell's experience with the Romney campaign is a great illustration of misguided allegiance and also of the backward way of thinking about gay issues evidenced by even more "progressive" Republicans.

Grenell is the foreign policy strategist / adviser /spokesman to the Romney camp who has resigned before he even got started because of the fallout among conservative Republicans over the fact that he is gay.  Never mind that he has excellent credentials from the Bush years.  Of course that opposition is to be expected, but the spinelessness of the Romney campaign is marvelous to behold.  Mind you, when Grenell brought up the issue in his initial interview with the campaign, he was assured by Romney's people that his sexuality wasn't an issue with them.  On a conference call about foreign policy last week with news organizations, Grenell was told by the Romney campaign to dial in from home and listen in on the call, but not to speak.  They explained he needed to keep a low profile "until this blows over."

Just like all the people who one used to hear say they had no problems with gays generally, but just with those one who act like fags. Blacks are ok as along as they act white, and gays are ok as long as they act straight.  Go slow.  Stay in the background.  Don't make a scene. To his credit, Grenell had enough sense of integrity to say screw you, and resign.

Mind you, Romney is the candidate who is already challenging Obama's credentials as a leader. In this case, he's leading from behind, as the saying goes....about 25 years behind.

Why is his association with the Republican party a misguided allegiance?  Because Grenell understandably purports to be a strong advocate of gay marriage.  The final decision on gay marriage inevitably is going to come from the Supreme Court which, as a human rights issue, it should!!  The next President is almost surely going to make one or more appointments to the Court.  A Romney victory, given the average term of service by Supreme Court justices, could likely prevent a final gay marriage victory until the middle of this century, and who knows how many more sterling decisions of the Citizens United quality.

According to Charles Blow, Romney has already named the agenda-driven Robert Bork as one of the chairmen of his "Justice Advisory Committee," and he has made clear what kind of justices he would appoint, even though with the state of the Republican party these days, there could have been no doubt anyway:

I would have favored justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas. I like justices that follow the Constitution, do not make law from the bench. I would have much rather had a justice of that nature.

Frankly, this issue of the makeup of the Supreme Court is reason enough to support a non-Republican President, and not just because of gay rights.  As Blow notes:

There is little ambiguity here. Which of these two men will pick the next justice is of grave significance. This — like budgetary priorities and economic stewardship, concern for the earth and the air, and a candidate’s penchants for war and appetite for peace — should be on the lips of every pundit and in the minds of every concerned citizen.

We don’t get a do-over.