He is openly gay. Unlike Seinfeld and friends, I believe that there is “something wrong with
that”. The controversy surrounding James sexuality has deep implications for
the Republican Party, the state, and the country, too. His campaign for LA
Mayor is being touted as a turning point for the California Republican Party. Conservatives
want to advance candidates who champion limited government, local control,
lower taxes, less spending, and individual liberty. However, they are facing a
growing tide of “demanded acceptance” for “gay marriage”. Former Presidential
Candidate Newt Gingrich conceded that the Republican Party cannot win the battle
over this issue. Larry Kotkin signaled without resignation that young Republicans
are more accepting of gay marriage than old Democrats.
I am not so inclined. A British airline pilot enlightened me
when he defined “marriage” as between one man and one woman, not out of offense
or disgust, but because that is just the way it is: like “2 + 2 = 4”. Marriage by
condition, by tradition, by definition is “one man and one woman.'” This
position cannot be articulated based on tradition only, since traditions are
subject to change, and for the better, sometimes.
Touching on the core issue, I have never once believed that
homosexuality is a matter of identity, but rather a matter of choice, pure and
simple. Tammy Bruce, the fiery openly-lesbian radio host who voted for Reagan
both times, admits that she chooses to be lesbian. Conservative radio host Dennis
Prager illustrated “gay as choice” when he discussed the prevalence of homosexuality
among women who enter prison. Some female prisoners engage in sexual
relationships with other inmates, but when they leave prison, they get married
and have children.
I have encountered numerous individuals who lived a “gay
lifestyle”, then abandoned it because of boredom and emptiness. One man acknowledged
that his relationship with another man was “all pretend”. In many lesbian couples, one woman is “more manly”
than the other. An LA Weekly article called “Gay Happiness” reported that there
is very little, mostly because a “gay relationship” centers around a sex act, nothing
more.
On average, homosexuals have a diminished lifespan (20%),
and this statistic is born out in both accepting and condemning cultures, even
after factoring out disease and dysfunction. Ancient historians, including Polybius,
witnessed the implosion and demise of Greek city states because of the
breakdown of proper sexual relationships. Beyond Conservative Dinesh D’Souza’s
declaration that “Men need women, not men!”, homosexuality, like any other deviant
sexual conduct, damages the body, soul, and spirit. Looking past individual problems,
if people endorse “gay marriage” (not “marriage equality”, since marriage has
nothing to do with equality, but mutual, unified submission), where do we draw
the line? How do we forbid a man from marrying a horse, a doorknob, or a minor?
Frankly, marriage should be a private matter; not even civil
unions should exist. No pastor should appeal to a government authority to join
anyone in marriage. “Tolerance” must be the word, then. Then again, gay
political activists insist that they will not tolerate “tolerance”. They must
be accepted as “gay”. I asked one activist to explain his “gay identity”. He sounded
more confused than ever. Sex and sexuality is a choice, but the wisest choice
is sex within the boundaries of marriage, between one man and one woman.
I am on record for supporting one gay candidate. In 2012, real
estate agent Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, a state senate minority leader and
openly gay Republican, had a sporting chance against fourteen-term and irrepressibly
corrupt Democratic Congressman John Tierney. I even wrote a post to the Wrentham Patch
(hometown for US Senator
Scott Brown) entitled “Sixteen Trillion Reasons to Give Five Hundred Pennies to
Richard Tisei.” Get rid of Tierney, rev up a conservative resurgence in the
Northeast, and show the Bay State, New England, and the rest of the country that
“The Republican Party can compete nationwide.”
Tisei was a “live and let live Republican”: pro-choice,
pro-gay marriage, refused to sign the “Grover Norquist Tax Pledge”, with a
respectable record of resisting taxes, spending, and waste. Offering himself up
as an “unsullied” alternative to a troubled incumbent, Tisei lost by one measly percentage
point, depressed by the uninspiring leader of the GOP ticket. Then again, a
campaign of “I’m gay and better than that guy” was probably not compelling enough,
either.
As for Kevin James, the openly gay entertainment
lawyer-radio host running for mayor of Los Angeles, I want to like the man. I could
– maybe – vote for the guy. But could I
knock on doors or make phone calls for him? Would my vote endorse a lifestyle contrary
to a person’s body, soul, and spirit? How “big” should the GOP tent be, then,
without compromising the truth? These are questions which this California Republican
faces “coming out” as “pro-life, pro-marriage”.