Even gays say I was right: Grenell hire was all about homosexuality

By Bryan Fischer

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"

It turns out that I was dead right that Mitt Romney's hire of a homosexual activist was all about homosexuality, not foreign policy.

How do I know? Gay activists are saying so, and so is ABC. So there. Told you so.

ABC's has a feature piece today with this title: "Mitt Romney's Appointment of Gay Aide Richard Grenell Signals New Attitude." New attitude about what, pray tell?

ABC says that Grenell's sexual preference for men was not an issue "until a gay-bashing radio host at the American Family Association wrote in his blog that by appointing Grenell, Romney was telling the so-called pro-family community to 'drop dead.'" That would be me.

Then ABC laments, "CNN amplified that message from Bryan Fischer by inviting him on for an interview," in which I said, "The homosexual agenda represents the single-greatest threat to religious liberty and freedom of association in America today."

You can ask the faith community in Hutchinson, Kansas about that statement, by the way. The city council there is about ready to order churches to host gay weddings regardless of the First Amendment and all that rot about freedom of religion.

ABC goes on, "The problem, gay Republicans say, is not that homophobes like Fischer are still around but that a person's sexual orientation is still newsworthy enough to provide a cheap story or mini-controversy."

For the record,I am not a homophobe but a homophile. I don't have any fear whatsoever of homosexuals. I love them enough to tell them the truth about their lifestyle and to hope and pray for their deliverance.

And I have to laugh when I read ABC saying that sexual orientation is "still newsworthy enough to provide a cheap story." Oh, you mean like a story headlined, "Mitt Romney's Appointment of Gay Aide Richard Grenell Signals New Attitude?" You mean that kind of a "cheap story," the kind you run on your website?

And then ABC's veil comes off and we find out that it believes exactly what I said from the beginning: this was a message hire, a dog whistle on Romney's part to homosexual activists.

"Grenell's appointment also signaled that the Romney campaign had fully moved on from the primary in which the former Massachusetts governor vaulted to the right wing of his party to win conservative voters who were less likely to support gay rights."

"Fully move on" from what? Well, from any pretense that Romney had any commitment to social values in the first place. Even ABC says the Grenell hire throws that foolish inane idea down the disposal.

In other words, according to ABC, Romney has gone full Etch-A-Sketch on the values issue. That stuff about social conservatism was so much shameless pandering to naive Republicans. Gov. Windsock has now shifted directions with what he perceives to be the prevailing breeze.

Further confirmation comes from the homosexual publication, the Washington Blade. The Blade breathlessly opens its story on Romney's new hire this way: "With Romney poised to wrap up the Republican nomination — and ready to pivot to the general election contest — his campaign announced the appointment of a gay man, Richard Grenell, to serve as national security and foreign policy spokesman."

Pivot from what? From the silly notion that Romney cares about social values.

The Blade tacks this all down: "Meanwhile, Romney's decision to hire Grenell, who's gay and a former Bush administration official, as his national security and foreign policy spokesman, was viewed as a pivot to the political center now that the primary season is ending." (Emphasis mine.)

So even homosexual activists are saying that the Grenell hire represents a lurch away from all those evil pro-family conservatives who believe in the moral value system of the Founding Fathers. Even gays are celebrating the message from Romney here: I'm with you, not with those Neanderthal homophobes on the right.

The Blade spends much time discussing whether or not the Log Cabin Republicans will endorse Romney. The sole sticking point is his support for a federal marriage amendment, but as homosexual activist Jim Driscoll says, that support is meaningless since nobody thinks he's serious about it.

"...[I]t seems to me that there's very little chance that that marriage amendment can pass. It's kind of a dead issue. I don't see that it has any momentum. And I suspect that while [Romney] formally favors it, he's not going to lift his little finger to do anything to see that it passes."

In other words, it's a meaningless bone he has thrown to gullible pro-family types who believe his rhetoric instead of examining his record.

When it comes to Romney's actually record, another gay activist, Bob Kabel, says there is a lot there for the homosexual lobby to like:

"Romney has a good track record as governor of Massachusetts on gay issues, including appointing a number of openly gay officials in important positions. Other than on marriage, which we have a strong disagreement about, he is actually quite good on gay issues."

The founder of the Log Cabin Republicans agrees. Rich Tafel says, "Mitt is a moderate, which is [why] he's had a tough time this primary." Even under the most charitable interpretation, he's saying that Romney had to fool GOP voters into thinking he is something he is not. And sadly, this mendacity on his part appears to have worked.

Tafel adds, "He has a history of supporting gays and appointing them, which makes him unique among the GOP candidates." In other words, says this gay activist, Romney is the only GOP candidate who is totally in the tank for the gay agenda.

Bottom line: Gov. Romney better do another pivot, back to the right, in a big fat hurry or he — and the GOP — will lose the evangelical base, and with it, the election.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

© Bryan Fischer