"Scandal:" One of Mitt Romney's Spokesmen is Gay

Townhall.com ^ | April 24, 2012 | Guy Benson

[Kaslin]

Outrage!  Or something!  Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has "stepped on a landmine" by having the temerity to appoint -- I hope you're sitting down -- an openly gay national security spokesman, according to one leader of a social conservative group.  Once you've pried yourself from the floor, feel free to persuse some choice excerpts from this person's incensed column:
 

Gov. Mitt Romney stepped on a landmine by appointing Richard Grenell, an out, loud and proud homosexual, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues. Grenell has for years been an outspoken advocate for homosexual marriage. In fact, word is that he left the Bush administration because President Bush would not formally acknowledge his homosexual partner.

"Word is" that unattributed rumors can be passed off as facts in certain quarters.
 

Since, as the saying goes in D.C., personnel is policy, this means Gov. Romney has some ‘splaining to do. This clearly is a deliberate and intentional act on his part, since he was well aware of Mr. Grenell’s sexual proclivities and knew it would be problematic for social conservatives. It’s certainly not possible that there are no other potential spokesmen available, men who are experts in foreign policy and who at the same time honor the institution of natural marriage in their personal lives.

So the mere employment of a gay or lesbian person -- regardless of his or her political leanings, or level of expertise -- is "problematic" for "social conservatives?"  Is heterosexuality now a prerequisite to work on behalf of a Republican presidential candidate?  Quite a standard, I must say.  And the kicker:
 

Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.

What's the "obvious" conclusion here, again?  It sounds like this gentleman is suggesting that because some homosexuals engage in "frequent and anonymous" sexual encounters -- as do some straight people -- all gay people with access to sensitive information are ipso facto national security risks.  Okay then.  Rather than punch holes in this, er, logic, I'll just encourage you to read Jen Rubin's take down of this nonsense here.  It seems Romney has repudiated this particular individual in the past over some previous inflammatory rhetoric, so perhaps the whole spat is personal.  In any case, here's an actual gay rights-related threat to the American ideal, upon which conservatives of all stripes should agree:
 

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties. The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month. According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”

Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.” “It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.” He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties. “What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.

Unlike the "controversy" discussed above, this story truly is outrageous.  According to the Constitution -- and recently reaffirmed 9-0 by SCOTUS -- churches and other religious institutions have the right to adhere to the tenets of their faith, especially within the walls of their own places of worship.  This proposal (in Kansas, of all places) would sacrifice Americans' sacred religious liberties on the altar of political correctness.  It's both flagrantly unconstitutional and totally wrong-headed.  Sadly, it's not unprecedented.  We've seen pastors persecuted by Canadian "human rights" tribunals for public criticisms of homosexuality, and an EU court ruled last month that churches that decline to carry out gay weddings in member states that have legalized the practice are guilty of discrimination.  Oh, but that sort of thing could never happen here, we're told, because we have a First Amendment.  Indeed we do, but we've just gotten through witnessing a presidential administration stomp all over said amendment, in furtherance of a tawdry political end.  So forgive me for questioning the hard Left's fealty to the United States Constitution. 

[little jeremiah]

Bolton is pro-fags in the military and pro-fag marriage. So he’s dead wrong about the homo agenda.

[little jeremiah]

Exactly.

[Pelham]

Planet Kolob has ass pirates- who knew?

[Pelham]

Townhall.com, the Musical.

Featuring Guy Benson in the role of...

[Kazan]

Oh Oh Oh, the inhumanity of it all, an openly gay man? now this is horrible why?

Because the gay men in question is militant homosexual activist?

There is a big problem with that as it tells us Romney is bed in the homosexual agenda as he has been for years, going to back to when he sought to discriminate against the Boy Scouts as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics.

If you think social conservatives are going to tolerate Romney pushing a homosexual, you're mistaken.

[Kazan]

FYI, Richard Grenell was a former aide to John Bolton.

I don't care if he has seances with Ronald Reagan. He is an outspoken homosexual activist. Romney is and always has been a proponent of the homosexual agenda and this further proof he is going to continue to be.

[Kazan]

I guess Log Cabin Republicans are horrible too?

Um, that is correct.

The LCR has but one objective -- promoting the homosexual agenda within the Republican party.

[LomanBill]

 

=====================

 

KASLIN: What happens now?

Scott Toomey: Well, now, uh, Ken Mehlman, R. Clarke Cooper, Meghan McCain, Mary Cheney and I wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the Fithcally Conthervative log cabin, taking The Party(tm) by surprise -- not only by surprise, but totally unarmed!

KASLIN: Who leaps out?

Scott Toomey: Uh, Ken Mehlman,  R. Clarke Cooper, Meghan McCain, Mary Cheney and I. Uh, leap out of the log cabin, uh and uh....

KASLIN: Oh....

Scott Toomey: Oh.... Um, l-look, if we built this large wooden Rhinocerous -- [twong]

ALL:  Run away!  Run away!  Run away!  Run away!
      [splat]

"The [my] only connection [to the Republican Party]is I'm registered as a Republican"---Mitt RRRRRomney---http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNbXdOCQQMs

[LomanBill]

What part of PostGenderist/Transhumanist doctrine is Conservative?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=29&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=+PostGenderist/Transhumanist

[LomanBill]

What does “Due Penalty for their perversions” mean?

[lentulusgracchus]

Townhall.com, the Musical.

;)

Think Nathan Lane would be available? Can he sing?

[lentulusgracchus]

The LCR has but one objective -- promoting the homosexual agenda within the Republican party.

And depriving social conservatives of a voice and a party, and consigning us to total defeat, and to police actions by their Rat allies. Giving us "the treatment", like Hoover and the Kennedys gave the KKK. Imagine every big-name preacher you can think of, sitting in Leavenworth for his faith. Something like that.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Article]

It sounds like this gentleman is suggesting that because some homosexuals engage in "frequent and anonymous" sexual encounters -- as do some straight people -- all gay people with access to sensitive information are ipso facto national security risks. Okay then. Rather than punch holes in this, er, logic, I'll just encourage you to read Jen Rubin's take down of this nonsense here. [Link in original.]

Cleanup on aisle 3 ..... Jennifer Rubin, quoted by the author, is a neocon. No love lost between neocons and social or Southern conservatives: in fact, neocons have been busy for almost 20 years, trying to push Southerners out of any positions of influence in the GOP.

Note in this long article about her at the Progressive Policy Institute's "Che Guevara Files" on prominent conservatives and neocons, that she is not quoted at all on social issues, although she supports certain conservative evangelical groups, such as Rev. Hagee's, that support Israel.

Cold link here:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/rubin_jennifer

The PPI's silence on her social values is thunderous, and speaks eloquently of her Eastern urban social values, as opposed to the family-values agenda of "guns, God, the unborn, and DOMA".

[lentulusgracchus]

Uyup, Jennifer Rubin is a neocon and a social liberal on some key issues, which is why she got cited.

This article explains in part:

But Rubin, who has never shied from a fight, says that her role is different from conservative bloggers: She’s commenting on the right, not defending it.

And she is not, by many measures, a conservative stalwart. While she rarely writes on social issues, for instance, she breaks with her party on some of the most deeply politicized ones. While she thinks Roe v. Wade should be “repealed” as legal folly, her own view on abortion “is Bill Clinton’s line” — “safe, legal and rare,” she said, though she said she could support banning some late-term abortions. She says of same-sex marriage, “each state should be able to decide and people should be able to marry who they wish.”

“I have never understood the argument that gay marriage diminishes heterosexual marriage,” she said, adding that it’s not high on her list of priorities.

She said she doesn’t view her heterodox views as a handicap.
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66854.html

And for the record, she now holds the WaPo blogging job covering "the Right" that was outed as a fraud in 2010 by Tucker Carlson in the Dave Weigel meltdown. She at least seems to be more honest, or at least forthcoming, about her job than Weigel and his masters were. She writes that she covers conservatism, and de-emphasizes the Post's original idea that the job was covering the movement from the inside -- a good idea considering she's no defender of DOMA.

[Skylab]

“Oh Oh Oh, the inhumanity of it all, an openly gay man?
now this is horrible why?”

Obviously you want to take away my guns and destroy this country. Satan is the father of lies!

[Skylab]

“While I oppose gay marriage, there are some things that are more important, like protecting this nation from its foreign enemies and saving it from socialism. Gay marriage is far down the list.”

Parmenio was Alexander’s most important general, no? Interesting connection there, regarding the whole gay thing.

I wonder if being kind to and tolerant of others who do you no harm is also far down the list.

[Skylab]

“What does “Due Penalty for their perversions” mean?”

It depends on what perversion means. Do you look at women who wear pants with the same disgusts you use for gay people? And how do you know if you hadn’t accidentally sat on the same chair as a woman on her period? All important issues in these times.

[RatRipper]

Willard is not hypocritical, nor schizophrenic, nor empty. He is a malefactor, and works to as certain a purpose as did his moral and intellectual equivalent, Margaret Sanger.

And your view of his purpose is . . . ? I am honestly asking. I could see your theory going in several directions. And I know some, but not that much about Mormonism. I am staunch conservative Presbyterian.

[Psalm 144]

Suppress the population of non-Mormon “gentiles” via abortion and condoning of open homosexuality while simultaneously promoting heterosexual marriage and live births within his religious group. Rinse and repeat a few generations and this is a game changer. This is Margaret Sanger’s approach to ‘undesirables’, and I believe it is Romney’s as well.

This answers the appearance of a contradiction in his public policy as Governor and his internal policy as Mormon clergy.

[RatRipper]

Could be. I would not disagree. Muslims practice this now. From the beginning, the chosen people were instructed by God to be “fruitful and multiply”. And we Christians are the “salt of the earth” and should feel an obligation to have children. It would be poetic justice for the leftists to dilute their influence because of the fruits of their licentious ways.

Thank you.