2+2=5
One can be constantly bemused by the views of certain political spectators. To them, you have to agree with everything someone or some party says to be part of them.
It can be seen on both sides.
Jerry Fallwell said that gays can't be Republicans, and today, Bill Clinton said much the same thing about a gay man who is trying to defeat his wife.
Yes, it may make the former president "sad," but I think he misses the point.
Look, just because I support the president on terrorism doesn't mean that I agree with him on guns or gay marriage, or anything else. It means just that.
So this man is gay, and married to his partner, something that is at odds with the GOP's widely held stand on marriage.
But does that neccesarily mean he is self loathing? I don't think so.
Is Clinton arguing that because this man is gay, he has to abandon all of his priciples? "Well, I agree with Hillary on nothing but gay marriage, so I guess she's OK to be senator."
It doesn't work that way, I was closer to John Kerry on certain issues than I was to the president, but Bush was closer to me on the issues that meant the most, so he got my vote.
There is no one, in their heart of hearts, who agrees with a party on EVERYTHING. It's not possible.
And, quite frankly, the cross over shouldn't surprise. The Catholic church has long decried abortion, but also is against the death penalty. How does one resolve this confict when choosing a party?
My point is that gays can be Republicans, and anyone can be anything. Anyone who suggests otherwise is guilty of, if nothing else, stereotyping.