Many social conservatives believe that in the interest of ‘big tent’ politics it is permissible to vote for practicing and openly gay politicians. But the unanimous vote in favor of the redefinition of marriage in Iceland, with openly lesbian Prime Minister Johanna Siguroardottir leading the way, should give such conservatives pause.
The dilemma is similar to that which social liberals face when deciding whether to vote for a Christian politician.
A social liberal would be willing, and even happy, to vote for a nominal/dissenting Christian politician. Such a politician would actually only weaken the example of authentic Christianity, especially if the religious leadership does not reprimand him or her. For the social liberal, such a Christian could be seen as an heroic pioneer to steer Christianity to what they perceive as a more enlightened position.
So too, a social conservative would be willing to vote for a politician with admitted homosexual inclinations, but who chooses to refrain from acting on those desires, knowing homosexual acts to be unnatural, unhealthy and immoral. Such individuals would, by upholding the truth on human sexuality, undermine the propaganda which suggests that aberrant sexuality is normal and healthy. Electing such an individual would thus be acceptable.
We should always keep in mind that in electing individuals to public office, we are indeed electing an exemplar for the populace. Public officials are looked up to by those whom they represent and are often made into role models for school children.
Beyond this, politicians influence other politicians. Imagine how difficult it would have been as a pro-family politician in Iceland to vote against same-sex ‘marriage’ when the prime minister is herself an active lesbian.
The disagreements between pro-family and homosexualist forces are far-reaching, to the degree that a laissez-faire political coexistence is not possible.
One side views those who oppose same-sex “marriage” as bigoted and discriminatory, even “haters,” for refusing societal and legal recognition of “loving relationships.”
The other side views acceptance of homosexual behavior as the promotion of a deadly behavior that results in shattered lives, a broken culture and spiritual peril.
Both sides of the debate are locked in a struggle for the hearts and souls of their peers.
For the homosexual activist, mere tolerance is never enough. The goal is full acceptance of homosexuality. The push for homosexualist education in school, accompanied by restrictions on parents withdrawing their children from offensive classes gives clear evidence of this fact.
For the pro-family activist the goals are similarly broad. The aim is not simply to passively have others “do whatever they want” as long as they do so privately – in the proverbial “closet” – but to have the destructive behaviors recognized for the dangers they represent, to assist individuals to resist the disordered urges, and to have children spared corrupting examples and the deprivation of not having a mother or father – both effects of homosexual parenting.
This is not to deny that there is some common ground among the disparate factions. Both sides of the issue can support the effort to end “gay bashing” – the physical assaults against and taunting of persons identifying as or perceived to be homosexual. Both sides agree there is no place for such brutality in civilized society.
All persons regardless of sexual orientation have human dignity and as such are deserving of equal respect. Such assaults are in fact fuel for the homosexual activist movement, rather than an effective method of combating its efforts.
Therefore, when pro-family advocates oppose electing practicing and openly gay politicians, it is not because of a baseless or irrational phobia of a different sexual orientation. Rather, it’s because of a clear-headed recognition of what results from exalting an individual who not only engages in, but is proud of his or her destructive behavior.