Christian voter guide

Political Repercussions of the LGBTQ Agenda – Robert A. J. Gagnon

ROBERT A. J. GAGNON·MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2018

 

Every time Democrats are in political power, these are the kinds of things that Christians and others face with increasing intensity from a Party given over wholly to the LGBTQ agenda. The list is not exhaustive. A vote for Democrats is a vote to imperil your greatest liberties.

1) Children coercively indoctrinated by schools into the belief that anyone who does not support the LGBTQ agenda is a bigot akin to the most virulent racist; children made more confused as to their own sexuality, taught to disconnect gender from biological sex, with the increased risk of harm that attends increased “LGBTQ” identification.

2) Grant males who claim that they are females (many of whom remain sexually attracted to women) complete access to the private spaces of women (restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, showers, women's shelters) and to female sporting events (regardless of the mismatch) and prosecute anyone who attempts to stop them from doing so to the fullest extent of the law as a "civil rights" violation.

3) Colleges and universities become places for punishing free discourse among faculty, staff, and students about the subject on the claim that anything other makes pro-“LGBTQ” fanatics “unsafe”; Christian groups derecognized for not allowing leaders that defy the orthodox Christian position on sexual ethics; and Christian schools lose their accreditation if they do not foster such ungodliness.

4) Lose one’s job if in the workplace (or even on social media in some cases) one speaks critically of “gay marriage” or fails to use the “preferred pronoun” and name of a “transgender” person who denies his or her biological sex; and experience in the workplace, like schools, heavy-handed indoctrination (brainwashing) into the ideology of homosexualism and transgenderism; mandating that companies institute affirmative-action policies for immorality or otherwise be denied contracts or grants from the federal government.

5) Prosecute business owners connected with weddings (photographers, bakers, caterers, florists) and even some that are not (like T-shirt designers) who do not use their artistic talents to promote, or even  do not write messages that express approval for, homosexual unions; being fined tens of thousands of dollars and losing their businesses and even life savings; prosecute also business owners who do not accommodate male employees who want to come to work dressed up as women, with a female hair-style and make-up.

6) Require that bed-and-breakfast places in a private residence must accept persons having "gay" sex under their roof irrespective of personal religious beliefs; and that churches let out their facilities for "gay weddings" or any "gay" or "transgender" celebration if they allow their facilities to be rented by anyone else.

7) Put out of business Christian adoption agencies unless they are willing to place orphans in "gay" and "transgender" homes, not just as a last resort but on equal grounds with a stable heterosexual union.

8) Forbid children being placed for adoption or foster care with prospective parents who do not agree to encourage any possible homosexual or transgender self-identity that the child may grow into at a future date; and require that state Social Services remove one's own natural child from the home if the parents attempt to thwart their child's homosexual or transgender self-identification and behavior, including not allowing one’s child to attend a "gay student alliance" group at school or even to receive "puberty blockers" or sexual "reassignment" surgery.

9) Make it a violation of the law to promote sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) or even change of homosexual or transgender behavior, so long as there is an exchange of funds, possibly including even the sale of books; and this not just by professional therapists but also by church officials.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-a-j-gagnon/political-repercussions-of-the-lgbtq-agenda-robert-a-j-gagnon/2290843874320045/

Culpably Ignorant Voters

One way to tell just how ignorant most voters are, even voters who are so interested in politics that they participate in the primaries, is to look at how wrongly they judge electability. Trump's electability is horrible, far worse than that of his Republican rivals. He often trails Clinton by a double-digit percentage in the polls, and his unfavorability rating is the worst Gallup has found in nearly a quarter of a century of tracking those numbers. Yet, voters repeatedly say that they think Trump is the most electable of the Republican candidates. Most likely, that's largely because of a simplistic assumption that whoever is leading in the primaries must have the best electability in the general election. What does it tell us about voters when they can go through several months of a highly controversial and highly important primary season without doing even the most basic research on electability? Dan McLaughlin writes:

Respondents in the Bloomberg poll picked Trump over Cruz by a whopping 66-26 margin on the question of “Has the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton?” Even as poll after poll after poll confirms what any moderately sentient observer of American politics knows – that Trump would be a catastrophe in November – ordinary voters seem regularly to be under the impression that other voters like Trump a lot, so he must be a strong general election candidate. Trump is running on electability, while not having it, and not having principles, either. It seems at times as if the voters need to see Trump destroyed by Hillary before they will believe it. It is the job of Cruz, and of everyone who opposes Hillary’s election to the Presidency, to spread the word that this is nonsense, before it’s too late for us to turn back from the brink. A vote for Donald Trump in the primary is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Vote For Yourself

I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program yesterday. I heard him say that the Republicans in Congress should have done the right thing, regardless of the political consequences. I got the impression that what he meant was that they should have put forward various policy proposals, voted for particular pieces of legislation, etc., regardless of how the media, voters, and other people would have responded. It's a common sentiment. Do the right thing, regardless of the cost.

The problem is, it's not always the right thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with something like voting for a piece of legislation that only gives you half of what you want while giving you other things you don't want. There's nothing inherently wrong with voting for a less conservative candidate who's more electable than a more conservative one. Sometimes, short-term setbacks prepare the way for better victories over the long run. You gain something more valuable by giving up something less valuable. We all apply such standards in many contexts in our lives, but some people act as though we can never do that in politics.

So, why don't they vote for themselves? Who do they agree with more? Sure, you aren't running for office. And your electability would be poor even if you were running. But so what? Do the right thing. Stand on principle. Vote for yourself. Don't settle for voting for somebody like Trump or Cruz. That's an unethical compromise. You don't agree with them as much as you agree with yourself. And that's the only thing that matters.

Voters Are More Guilty Than The Establishment

Here's something I recently wrote in an email, in case anybody would find it helpful. I'm responding to an article by Ben Shapiro :

Shapiro's argument doesn't make much sense. There are major obstacles to Trump's winning the nomination, which Shapiro doesn't even mention. His negative numbers among Republicans are unusually high, and his negatives are even worse outside of the party. When it's still 2015, there's still a double-digit number of candidates running, and most of the negative ads against Trump haven't even started airing yet, his consistently getting in the twenties or thirties in polls doesn't amount to much.

The phrase "the establishment" is vague and defined and redefined in so many ways. If everybody would stop using the term, I think we'd be better off for it. The phrase didn't have much value to begin with, and it's now been overused to an absurd degree.

Is Karl Rove part of the establishment? He recently told Michael Medved that he includes Cruz among the candidates he considers to have the stature of a president. He didn't include Trump. What about the National Review writers who have been most vocal in opposing Trump? I've repeatedly seen them make positive comments about Cruz and comment on how he's an acceptable choice and better than Trump. Shapiro's claim that Cruz is the candidate the establishment is most opposed to strikes me as ridiculous. They'd prefer Cruz to Trump.

And given how conservative Rubio is, I'd say that the widespread support for him among people often labeled as part of the establishment goes a long way in demonstrating that the establishment isn't opposed to conservatism. Their problem with candidates like Trump and Carson (and Cruz to a lesser extent) isn't that they're conservative. (As if Trump is too conservative for them.) Rather, they're concerned about electability. And they should be. Shame on the people who either aren't concerned about it or are far less concerned than they ought to be.

There are some problems with many of the people who are often labeled as part of the establishment. But the problems are often exaggerated, and a lot of their critics have some problems of their own.

Shapiro's comments about talk radio are misleading. He writes:

"Members of Republican media are now attacking others in Republican media who don’t see Trump as the gravest threat to the Republican Party or the republic; they bash Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin for focusing in on the left and the media, rather than on stopping Trump."

The problem critics see with people like Limbaugh and Levin isn't that they "don’t see Trump as the gravest threat to the Republican Party or the republic" and "focus in on the left and the media". Rather, the problem is along the lines of what Guy Benson describes in his article I recently linked on Triablogue.

Then there's Shapiro's failure to criticize the people most responsible for choosing our candidates and the people most responsible for making poor choices in the past: the voters. Who chose McCain and Romney? Voters made the choice more than anybody else. And they rejected candidates like Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Perry in the process. I can see rejecting some of them. But choosing Romney over Pawlenty was a mistake. That wasn't the establishment's mistake. It was the mistake of the voters, and talk radio and other critics of the establishment were at the forefront of making that mistake happen. They were focused on Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and other weaker candidates while they gave Pawlenty almost no support. They rejected Rick Perry for far less significant problems than the ones many of them are willing to overlook in Trump.

For a party that puts so much emphasis on personal responsibility, Republicans spend a remarkable amount of time blaming a vague establishment and not much time holding the voters responsible for their mistakes.

The Social Issues And The Electoral College

Here's an excerpt from a good post by Henry Olsen:

The Difference A Party And A President Make

It's often said that there's no significant difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. People who don't vote or who support a third party candidate often make that claim. I've addressed the subject many times in the past, but I want to point to an illustration that's currently prominent in the news.

Think of the progress the movement toward homosexual marriage has made in recent years. Which party has, by a wide margin, been more responsible for that change? Think of the significance of Barack Obama's endorsement of homosexual marriage last year. Think of the long list of individuals and organizations who followed his lead, and ask yourself which party they were primarily affiliated with.

The Republican party may change its position on homosexual marriage in the future. If it does, that change won't alter the fact that there had been, and still is, a significant difference between the parties on homosexual marriage. And the future lack of difference, if there's going to be a lack, will be hastened by people who don't vote or who vote for a third party candidate for no good reason.