What Values Do the Franklin County GOP Stand For?
Family values? Traditional values? No- And they are willing to run a liberal Bush-hater, and the former national chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans as a candidate:
Despite accusations that he has been disloyal to their party, Republican leaders voted last night to endorse Bill Brownson for Columbus City Council.
Brownson, who will replace placeholder candidate John Campbell, is the first openly gay candidate to be backed by the county GOP’s 144-member central committee.
Allegations of disloyalty came during Brownson’s time as national chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans when the GOP gay-advocacy group withheld its endorsement for President Bush for re-election.
That doesn’t make Brownson the best candidate, some say.
Central committee member Jack Etheridge questioned Brownson in a June 16 e-mail to other members.
He disputed the Log Cabin group’s decision not to endorse Bush; its filing of a federal suit against then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; and its issuing of statements against both a law and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
“I do not question his prerogatives,” Etheridge wrote. “But we as committee members must also evaluate matters of principle and judgment.”
In a June 20 e-mail to The Dispatch, committee member Jeni Horn expressed concern that most of the GOP worked hard to support Bush in 2004.
Log Cabin’s decision to withdraw support for the president showed that Brownson put his personal concerns before the party’s, Horn wrote.
Brownson, 43, disagrees.
“I think they probably haven’t done all their homework on that front,” he said.
So this guy couldn’t even bring himself to vote for a President who appointed judges who actually read the constitution (Samuel Alito & John Roberts), but a County Republican Party is willing to endorse him?
Even though no examples come to mind, I think it is entirely possible for a homosexual politician to be conservative and defend traditional values. But I have serious questions about Brownson record, and it should concern all Franklin County Republicans that he is so open about his immoral lifestyle.
Bear Claw said,
Wrote on June 30, 2007 @ 11:02 am
This is what happens to the Republican party when it tries to be come the all inclusive party like the democrat party. We are essentially becoming parties A and B.
CincyJeff said,
Wrote on June 30, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
No no no, don’t you understand? They’re trying to be this big-tent inclusive party so they can win elections. And those Franklin County Republican sure have been doing great at winning elections lately, haven’t they?
Crooked Stream said,
Wrote on June 30, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Immoral?
Churches use only passages they support
Saturday, June 30, 2007 3:29 AM
I respond to the June 20 Dispatch article “Only Adam and Eve?” The article correctly identifies the Scripture passage Leviticus 18:22, commonly used by many to justify anti-gay discrimination.
However, if we follow some parts of Leviticus, shouldn’t we follow all parts? This passage, taken out of context, is one of the few in Leviticus actually known and used by many Christians.
If we were to adhere to the edicts of Leviticus, we would not allow women into a church for 33 days after giving birth to a male child and 66 days after the birth of a female child (Leviticus 12:4-5). We would not eat pork, lobster, shrimp, clams or crab meat (Leviticus 11:7, 12). We would execute people for having affairs (Leviticus 20:10). We would support and love illegal immigrants who live among us (Leviticus 19:33), feed the poor (Leviticus 19:10) and love our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18), which would include people of all nations.
These other parts of Leviticus are followed by very few people. What would a church lunch be without ham and scalloped potatoes?
As Christians, we tend to base our faith more on New Testament teachings, such as Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Galatians 3:28). Churches again are selective about what they follow from the New Testament. Not one word credited to Jesus Christ can be found in the entire Bible in reference to homosexuality. However Christ equated remarriage after divorce with adultery (Luke 16:18, John 4:18).
Unless I am missing something, a church that uses Leviticus to oppose homosexuality should also oppose more than one marriage. In fact, a truly adherent congregation should support the execution of members who marry more than once (Leviticus 20:10).
Might an important factor be that, given that the current divorce rate is 50 percent, denying church membership to half of the population might also cut church donations brought in by that group of people? Or, could it possibly be that many churches are justifying a certain level of discomfort or dislike of homosexuality with the inappropriate use of Scripture, much as proponents of slavery did to justify their stance prior to the Civil War?
I would have a lot more respect for a church that just said, for whatever reason, it just doesn’t want gay members.
I can’t help but wondering, however, what will happen when, at that time when we all must answer for the actions of our lives, some people are asked to justify why they created barriers for people seeking communion with the Lord.
JOHN BRION
Mike Pelsozy said,
Wrote on June 30, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Wow! The out of contexters strike again. I feel like I am back at BSB yesterday afternoon. If you are going to throw around all that Levitical Law you should probablly mention that Christ taught that he fullfilled the law for us (Mat 5:17). Funny thing you try Galatians…it probably is the best place where the NT expouses that we are free from the law. Keep reading Galatians. Galatians 5 deals with the subject of our freedom fromthe Law by being in Christ. I won’t bother with the theology of it b/c the above sounds like more of the “hate is not a family value” stuff.
Why we are Paul and his letters try the first chapter of romans on for size.
Romans 1: 26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Is that good NT evidence for anything? What could Paul be condemning there?
This is going to be risky…I some will/want to use it out of context. but, here it goes: There a lot of things Jesus did not teach about directly. Just because Jesus didn’t teach about incest, does that make it right? How about having sex with…oh boy I better not go there…my future career might get damaged b/c of sound biting.
I know some will want to say I am equating incest and homosexuality (which is why I didn’t risk another comparison). I am not doing that. I am just pointing out that there is a lot of things he did not teach about. But, that doesn’t make them right.
The only thing He directly commaned was to Love God and your neighbor. Unfotunately, many people forget the Love God (followinf the design of things he set-up, teachings, etc.) part and say that loving your neighbor means you should not disagree with whatever they want to do.
I am waiting for the David and Johnathon argument. I like shooting that one down. Read that story…then you can say you have direct evidence.
Bear Claw said,
Wrote on July 1, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Let’s not split hairs and let someone take us so far off topic we forget what the origional post is, some people like to get us to go at each other rather than the message. We need to get the party to get back on track with its conservative agenda. Some people of certain lifestyles have to at times lie to get their way because the end justifies the means. It is not discrimination, it is just that some people have a natural revulsion to an unnatural way of life. Hetro’s do not want it taught to their children and that is that. I tell you what here is a good argument, if some people force their pardon the pun, lifestyle down other peoples throats then I say let a child be raised in a neutral enviroment, say a man and a woman. Then they have both sexes there and let them decide on their own whether or not if they become that way.
Mike Pelsozy said,
Wrote on July 1, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
I agree, Bear Claw. Off track or not though I get tired of the bible being taken out of context, being told disagreement=hate, etc.
straightarrow said,
Wrote on July 2, 2007 @ 3:40 am
What would you expect from a county party that was almost singlehandedly responsible for creating the dictatorial Senate/House Caucus organizations, built the RINO ORP establishment we have all grown to hate, and in recent years, has elected an “openly gay” Chairman?
The Franklin County Party has always been a mirror image of the ORP because, sadly, the modern-day ORP was created in the Franklin County Party’s image.
Bear Claw said,
Wrote on July 2, 2007 @ 7:32 am
You forgot Summit county as well, but not “open”.