Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the The Hill on Thursday that the resignation of a gay foreign policy adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shows that the right wing of the Republican Party views being gay as a “cause of horror.”
Ric Grenell, who served as spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations including John Bolton, resigned as a foreign policy spokesman for Romney this week. He is openly gay, as Roger noted in recently writing about the appointment.
Frank, who is retiring at the end of this term, said the incident shows that Romney and Republicans are in a “vehemently anti-gay mode” that’s out of step with most of America.
“It is only on the right wing of the Republican Party where the very fact that you’re gay becomes a cause of horror, but what’s interesting is that Romney is afraid of it,” Frank said. “It confirms that Mitt Romney has sold himself to the right wing, and is enthralled to them, and is worried about doing anything to offend them.”
He added, “In this case, right-wing bigotry beat Etch-A-Sketch.”
The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and Campaign for Working Families’ Gary Bauer all denounced the hire as out of step with social conservatives. “Conservative pro-family leaders are disappointed because Grenell has been an outspoken advocate of redefining normal marriage,” Bauer wrote in a memo calling the hire an “unforced error” on the part of Romney.
Some contend that his resignation had more to do with numerous tweets he deleted from his account taking stabs at Hillary Clinton, Callista Gingrich and others.
One GOP adviser told The New York Times that the Romney camp saw Grenell’s sexual orientation as a “nonissue,” but “they didn’t want to confront the religious right.” The campaign has asserted that it tried to get Grenell to stay.
Frank charged that the incident damages Romney’s image as a business manager. “This is an extraordinary show of incompetence,” he said.. “It will redound to the benefit of the Democrats, without question.”
Thing is, no one was talking about this guy. Nobody cared who he was, or if he was gay, until he resigned.
And, really, Barney Frank? If he weren’t a Democrat, he’d be serving time in prison.
“…shows that the right wing of the Republican Party views being gay as a “cause of horror.””
Yes, well, Bwaney – I recollect you continually verbally abusing your own constituents here, whenever they asked of you a question you didn’t want to answer.
So I suppose this shows that the “left wing of the Democrat Party views being honest to their constituents as a ’cause of horror.’”
But we already knew that.
Back at ya, Boy.
Homosexuals seem compelled to view everything as about their sexual orientation. Compelled, meaning “Inherently incapable of engaging the world any other way.” There are implications to that.
Personally, I couldn’t care less whom Rick Grenell (or Barney Frank) sleeps with, as long as it isn’t me. That’s what ordinary people call indifference. It doesn’t mean we approve. It certainly doesn’t mean we’re going to concede whatever homosexuals demand. But they won’t be satisfied until everyone approves of everything they are and gives them everything they demand.
That’s not going to happen — and their insistence that it has to be that way is the strongest evidence I know of that homosexuality isn’t just a sexual preference, but a mental-emotional disorder.
homosexuality isn’t just a sexual preference, but a mental-emotional disorder.
Your error, if I may say so, is buying into the 19th-century pseudoscience that invented the concept of “homosexuality” as a distinct phenomenon.
Prior to the 19th century, homosexual behavior was often condemned, frequently punished—but the suggestion that “homosexuality” was a condition distinct from “heterosexuality” was nowhere in evidence. In short, the century which popularized eugenics and phrenology also gave us the misclassification of “homosexuality.”
Nowadays, gay-rights advocates jump nimbly to one side and then the other of the invented bright-line distinction between “homosexual” and “heterosexual.” They used to speak of “sexual preference,” recognizing that for the vast majority of practicing homosexuals the preference for same-sex companionship is a choice—but then they realized that it was difficult to demand special privileges from society for their indulgence in a choice. So “sexual orientation” is nowadays preferred—but “preference” surfaces to muddy the waters whenever an appeal to “freedom of choice” appears to offer some political advantage.
The gay-rights advocates are themselves highly elastic in their definitions; they will gladly claim as one of their own a youngster who admits to having engaged in a circle jerk on a Camp-o-Ree weekend, but will reject self-described bisexuals as “not gay enough” to participate in a “gay softball league.” They will hail someone who deserts wife and family to “come out” as “finally being true to himself,” but will labor mightily to ignore, and deny the existence of, those who leave the homosexual milieu for a partner of the opposite sex—for to do so would force them to admit that there is, indeed, choice in the matter of behavior, and that the revolving door not only permits people to “come out,” but to exit.
My point, in short, is that the entire concept of “homosexuality” upon which the modern gay-rights movement and its demands are based is, in reality, a matter of pseudoscience no less than the pseudoscience of “global warming.”
An interesting comment giving a much needed historical perspective. We scarcely recognize how very odd our contemporary sexual narratives are.
I have taught Latin and Classics for over 30 years. I find that the more “enlightened” the students get, the LESS they are able to comprehend the Ancient disposition in all things, but most particularly in the realm of sexuality.
Nevertheless, I contend that the words <homosexual and homsexuality have meaning. A homosexual is not merely one who has sex with others of his gender; he’s one who defines himself (or, to be fair, is defined by others) by his preference for sex with others of his gender. Homosexuality is the constellation of attitudes that characterize homosexuals as defined above.
Homosexuality doesn’t have to be something organic, immutable, or otherwise “prior to identity” to have a useful meaning.
so the diplomat was fired for being undiplomatic? to Mrs Gingrich, Mrs Clinton, and others- presumable Mrs?
is the Obama White House hiring? I think they’re pretty big on the undiplomatic to women thing.
It’s a choice, period. There may be urges and desires, but acting on them is a choice pure and simple. But God forbid you don’t just tolerate it but actually endorse and support it. I do not know if a person who chooses this lifestyle will go to heaven (“he who is without sin cast the first stone” and all) but I would bet that those who support it (Barney, Dan Savage(?), leadership of the various Protestant churches, those participating in the Naked Jesus day in San Francisco, etc.) will be very surprised when they die and try to ascend to the final plane of existence.
Barney Frank is a criminally corrupt politician who should be in prison for causing the financial crisis by favoring the interest’s of his boyfriend’s employer, Fannie Mae, and preventing needed reforms in 2003. Why do we care what he has to say?
“6. fahagen
Barney Frank is a criminally corrupt politician who should be in prison for causing the financial crisis by favoring the interest’s of his boyfriend’s employer, Fannie Mae, and preventing needed reforms in 2003. Why do we care what he has to say?”
Because he’s openly gay, which makes him morally superior to the common run of humanity – at least in the eyes of the socio-political left.
Politically correct commentary questions Jesus Christ’s deity
The New Oxford Annotated Bible – Sodomite Friendly Version/comentary
A new edition of the popular New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) commentary, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, reinterprets key sections of the Bible to negate or water down orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexuality, Jesus Christ’s sovereignty, and the sanctity of life.
The new Annotated Bible — edited in part by pro-”gay” and feminist scholars — adopts “gay” revisionist interpretations of Holy Scripture such as that God allegedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of inhospitality — not homosexual sin.
The nation’s leading church for homosexuals swiftly hailed the new politically correct Bible commentary. Rev. Troy D. Perry, founder of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches
Folks, Gay Rights has always been about decimating America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Finally, proof positive of this decade’s old agenda. See, if Gay Rights continues to gain more and more “Rights,” then all basis for America’s foundation is swept aside. Our Founding Fathers were devout christians and Our Bill of Rights is a direct link to Our Creator. Gay Rights seeks to unhinge this linkage…and here it is… The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
Eventually the truth will out, and here’s the proof. God Bless America.
The new Annotated Bible — edited in part by pro-”gay” and feminist scholars — adopts “gay” revisionist interpretations of Holy Scripture such as that God allegedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of inhospitality — not homosexual sin.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of inhospitality is the original interpretation of that story, as found in the Mishna, the earliest portion of the Talmud, which pre-dates Jesus and the Christian Bible.
It is not “revisionist”—indeed, assigning the destruction to homosexual behavior rather than hostility to strangers is the revisionist viewpoint.
Just to clarify matters.