Yesterday, in an interview with CBS News, GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain was asked whether he thought homosexuality was a sin and whether being gay was a choice. His answer:
“I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin. But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice. And I believe it is a choice.”
Am I pleased with this answer? No. Do I agree with Mr. Cain? No. I know being gay isn’t a choice and I know it firsthand. I also do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Does any of this change how I feel about Herman Cain? Not at all.
The bottom line is that Herman Cain’s personal position on whether being gay is a sin or a choice has no bearing on whether the policies he supports would be good for gay and lesbian Americans.
The truth is that Herman Cain is running on a campaign centered on conservative policies that would improve the lives of all Americans – including gay Americans. Herman Cain supports the Fair Tax – a proposal that would not only jump start our economy, and free up much needed capital, but a proposal that would also eliminate inequity in the tax code – immediately putting treating gay couples the same way straight couples are treated.
Herman Cain supports repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a market based solution that would lower costs across the system, empower individuals and increase the gay people’s access to insurance policies that offer domestic partner benefits.
Herman Cain understands the real and present danger that the spread of radical Islam poses to our way of life. Herman Cain hasn’t been shy about speaking out about the need to confront and stop the spread of radical Islam – a barbaric ideology that brutalizes women, religious minorities and gays.
For the gay left none of this will matter. All that matters is the group hug. For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people, all that matters is that they get the pat on the head – the assurance that they are ok. I don’t need the group hug, nor do I need affirmation from the government that I am ok. What I need is a President and a Congress that will pursue policies that will make life better for me and my family.
It is time the gay community put real policy before emotional theater, and that is exactly why gay people should be willing to listen to and consider the candidacy of Herman Cain.
That’s the beauty of true conservatism … it’s based on ideas and not identity.
[...] GOProud activist Christopher Barron: The truth is that Herman Cain is running on a campaign centered on conservative policies that [...]
My interpretation of his comment was that engaging in homosexual behavior was a choice, along the same lines as premarital sex or any other sin. Maybe that’s not what he meant, but that was my take. Either way, I certainly didn’t get a sense that he was being damning or judgmental. I like him for his economic and business experience and his common sense. So-called social issues don’t mean diddly to me with this fiscal mess we’re in. And I really appreciated your concise and analytical response to this non-issue. This is why conservatives are the true intelligent thinkers in this country.
One of the things about Herman Cain that appeals to me is that he isn’t a politician, and therefore says things that aren’t customary. He strikes me as very real.
Check out this humorous cartoon which uses Obama’s own voice, spoken by him, to make the case that he’s ill prepared to lead a capitalist society. The cartoon uses Obama’s recent (and desperate?) raffle to have dinner with him as a plot device to put him in contact with a perfect foil, who eventually decides that Obama is so hopelessly clueless that she is going to vote for Herman Cain.
It’s pretty funny and it also serves to highlight the differences in worldview (at least in terms of business and the economy) between somebody like Herman Cain and Mr. Obama. I found it illuminating.
My interpretation of his comment was that engaging in homosexual behavior was a choice, along the same lines as premarital sex or any other sin. I don’t think he meant that being gay was a choice. Maybe that’s not what he meant, but that was my take. Either way, I certainly didn’t get a sense that he was being damning or judgmental. I like him for his economic and business experience and his common sense. So-called social issues don’t mean diddly to me with this fiscal mess we’re in. And I really appreciated your concise and analytical response to this non-issue. This is why conservatives are the true intelligent thinkers in this country.
[...] a blog post earlier today, our friend Chris Barron addressed those comments: The bottom line is that Herman Cain’s personal position on whether being gay is a sin or a [...]
I am a Christian that does not believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it is nice to hear Mr. Cain say that he would hire a homosexual and that while he does not agree with their lifestyle he understands it is their life to lead. I like a lot of what I have heard Mr Cain say and I think he is one of my favorite candidates in the GOP race right now, but I’m not sure if I could see him winning the nomination. Hopefully a lot more people pay attention to him and what he is saying.
[...] be good for gay and lesbian Americans,” he says, while openly disagreeing with his claim. He continues: The truth is that Herman Cain is running on a campaign centered on conservative policies that [...]
Sorry, but this phrase–”The truth is that Herman Cain is running on a campaign centered on conservative policies that would improve the lives of all Americans – including gay Americans”–need to be amended. Yes, it’s possible his conservative ECONOMIC policies might help all Americans.
But his personal belief that how I was born is some sort of ‘lifestyle’ or ‘choice’ that I can turn off like a light switch (not entirely uncommon in the conservative community, though not an absolute) clearly illustrate he’d support legislation that would
1. Prevent my partner and I from having the same benefits as married straight couples,
2. Keep otherwise skilled gays and lesbians who want to protect this country out of the military simply because they’re gay or lesbian
3. Allow my employer to fire me simply because I’m gay.
4. Prevent me from adopting children
Sorry, but I think my life would be worse at that point. Conservative fiscal issues are fine, but money can’t buy happiness.
This is exactly the point. It is beyond my understanding why “gay conservatives” are so willing to trade personal integrity and freedom for economic security. They seem to not understand that oppressing and marginalizing gay people is not only anti-social, but economically destructive. Simple case: If you have two or three top employees who are gay and leave your company because of anti-gay policies in the state or city in which the company is headquartered, how is this good for them or for your company–or for the state or city involved? It has been shown that cities and states that have protections and benefits for gay people do better economically than those that don’t have such laws and policies. This should be more widely pointed out so as to shoot down the self-defeating arguments put forth by gays who call themselves conservative.
I respect your position, and I agree that his economic policies are good for everyone, but I can’t help but be disturbed by his comments. I really don’t understand why GOP feels a need to play the “defend marriage/family values” card. Ambassador Bolton supports gay rights, because he says the government has no business being involved.
As a gay, fiscal conservative how am I supposed to support someone that refuses to allow me to marry or protect me from being fired by my employer not based on my performance but on the no other reason than I’m gay?
[...] yet another post praising Anti-gay Herman Cain I see that someone else has made a valid and civil comment bringing [...]
The more I see of Herman Cain the less I like. If he wants to be a Bible believing Christain, good for him. It would be nice, though, if he realized that not everyone in this country is. I find his comments about homosexuality unacceptable. I watched him answer a question about how he would stop Iran from developing a nuke by drifting off into some mush about getting America energy independent. Then I saw him not know what the right of return issue was concerning Israel.
If I am going to vote for someone for the office of the President of the U.S. I’d like to think that person was a lot smarter than I am. Herman Cain – not so much.
I didn’t hear him say anything about proposing legislation that would limit gays in any way. I also didn’t hear him espouse a position of being anti-gay. He disagrees with homosexuality due to his religious beliefs, just as some of you disagree with him due to your own beliefs. He’s entitled to an opinion. So far he has spoken of less government intrusion in our lives and I take him at his word. Isn’t it interesting that the “reporter” didn’t ask any follow up questions? He just let it hang, a damnable answer in his mind, and let everyone react emotionally. Which many seem to be doing. You all are equating his personal objection to homosexuality to him being anti-gay. They are not the same thing. He even said that, if you were capable of listening past the part you objected to. He said it was a choice to live that way and that gays were free to make that choice, as in, that’s your right as an american citizen and he does support that. Why would you jump to conclusions and put words in his mouth? He wasn’t asked about how he would legislate vis a vi homosexuality. He was asked what his beliefs were regarding homosexuality. If you want to know the answer to the former then ask. Don’t assume and pass judgment. And for the record, I don’t believe its a choice and his remarks, when I first heard of them, bothered me too. But I really think he was speaking not of governance, but of personal belief.
You are absolutely correct. We are putting words in Mr. Cain’s mouth. Why? Because the words coming out of his mouth are identical to those coming from many other politicians who have supported anti-lgbt legislation. Yes, I suppose those of us objecting to Mr. Cain are jumping the gun, so I guess I would challenge Mr. Barron to ask Mr. Cain directly what he thinks of DOMA, DADT, ENDA, and gay adoption (for starters). When all the individuals running for candidacy of the Republican National Committee advocate against same-sex marriage, it rather sets the tone for party. If you can find me a politician–from any party–who has publicly said, “Homosexuality is a sin, and a choice” and yet supports any pro-lgbt legislation, I’d be willing to debate Mr. Cain’s social views further. In addition, no one here seems to have answered my questions (and those of LarryEsser and vastvariety) regarding the difficulty of supporting a politician–any politician–whose economic policies may be beneficial but whose social policies make our lives worse. That spells “sell out” to me.
[...] Chatter: GOProud chairman sticks by Herman Cain despite “sin” remark [...]
Well. There’s plenty of other candidates.
GLBT supporters who support the nation’s biggest anti-GLBT organization = http://tinyurl.com/69asmg3
It would really honor your side if any of you would actually address the premise those of us in the ‘GLBT-supportive people supporting anti-GLBT organization is bad’ camp by putting forth a reasoned response to the criticism instead of offering up yet another strawman justification.
Claiming that all we want a ‘group hug” is a fallacious representation of what we want: full recognition of GLBT 14th amendment guarantees. If your response is to claim that rolling back Obama initiatives will make up for the damage the Republican party does by choosing to prevent GLBT equality from being a reality, you will need to provide evidence – not conjecture – to support that argument. Simply proclaiming that it is so is a schoolyard argument.
From my experience with so-called GLBT “supportive” Republicans is that they are the only only ones playing identity politics when it comes to GLBT equality. Between June 2008 – February 2009, Republican support of GLBT equality tanked by almost half.* Why would that happen when Prop 8 was causing support of GLBT equality to rise in both the Democratic and Independent demographic? Might it have something to do with the fact that anti-GLBT equality McCain and Prop 8 supporter was running for the office of the President? I guess rounding the wagons around the Republican presidential nominee was more important to Republicans than any peskily 14th amendment guarantee.
Also, if you’re so supportive of the conservative ideology, why not support the Libertarians instead of our nation’s largest anti-GLBT equality organization? The belief that supporting the goals you claim to support can only be done through support of an anti-GLBT organization is a false dichotomy.
*CBS News Poll, N=1,082 adults nationwide
[...] her not running to be anyone’s judge; would be nice if she could build upon that as Herman Cain has. If she wants to win the votes of socially moderate suburbanites, in both the Republican [...]
[...] Folks who read this blog or follow me on twitter will also know that I am a big fan of Herman Cain and have been a vocal defender of his. [...]