Former GOP Spokesman, Haley Barbour Advisor, Wants to 'Marry' His Boyfriend

By Gina Miller
RenewAmerica.com

Listen to an audio version of this column

Last Thursday, the Washington Post carried an opinion piece by James Richardson, whose brief bio says that he's a former spokesman and adviser for the Republican National Committee and Governors Haley Barbour and Jon Huntsman. His column, "I'm a senior GOP spokesman, and I'm gay. Let me get married," attempts to make the case that there is simply no reason under the sun that he should not be able to "marry" a man.

The collapse of moral clarity in the United States is plainly shown in the withering sensibilities of the American people. Far too many today, especially of the younger generations that have been steeped in moral relativism in left-minded, government-run public schools, can no longer discern truth from error. More and more people, young and old, are being taken in by the moral equivalency arguments for counterfeit marriage. They are being asked, "Where's the harm in allowing two men to 'marry'?" and no good reason to oppose it enters their minds.

The Bible warns us that in these last days, there will come a time when men will no longer accept the truth. As written in 2 Timothy 4:3-4:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

While this may be a reference to apostasy within the church, the nation reflects the health – or lack of it – of the church, and our nation is quite sick. This is evident in the gruesome success of the tyrannical homosexual movement that is leaving in its wake a scorched earth of obliterated freedoms, degenerate minds and cultural rot.

So, in comes James Richardson making his case, such as it is, for faux marriage. After reporting on the federal government's supposed number of homosexual couples in his home state of Georgia (over 21,000) and the guesstimation that maybe half of them would "marry" if given the chance, he writes:

I'm one-half of one of those aggrieved couples – denied, for more than five years, the social stability and legal protections of marriage. And, as a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee and adviser to prominent party figures, I'm also a professional political operative who's helped install in government those who perpetuate marriage bias in America.

"Marriage bias"? As I have said many times, marriage is one thing only, the union of a man and a woman. That's all it has ever been and all it will ever be, no matter how many lawless federal judges illegally write bad law from the bench in overturning the will of the people of the sovereign states who have voted to codify the meaning of marriage in their state constitutions. There is no such thing as "marriage bias," unless you consider accepting the definition of marriage to be "biased" for truth. There can never be a marriage union between two men or two women, no matter what our insane society declares or how many devilish laws mandate an abominable parody of marriage.

Richardson goes on to admit that while working inside the GOP he was basically an agent for the liberal sexual anarchy movement. He states:

Throughout my career I've publicly advocated for the freedom to marry, urging the party for which I work to allow gay men and women to wed even as I never openly disclosed my personal stake. I've preached the small-government virtues of equal marriage, echoing a conservative case that had been made many times before by thinkers more eloquent and far brighter than myself. Never once did I write that I am gay.

No longer will many people accept the fact that, although there are plenty ofpractical reasons to oppose it, the entire foundation of the same-sex "marriage" argument is dead-wrong. It is based on a grotesquely immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behavior – pure sin, whether anyone on God's earth believes it or not. So, Richardson's arguments are empty from the start. There is no "conservative case" for homosexuality or counterfeit marriage. By its very definition, conservatism seeks to conserve our nation's heritage and moral framework, which includes marriage and family. There is already "freedom to marry" for every person, providing it is marriage in which you choose to engage. A man wanting to "marry" another man is nothing but a twisted farce, never a marriage.

Further, we have here an example of what many of us have warned: the infiltration of the conservative movement and the Republican Party by leftist operatives. Richardson may or may not view himself as a leftist infiltrator, but that's what he is. Like it or not, the Republican Party platform does not endorse liberal social causes, like homosexual "marriage," although that position has been eroded lately with all the leftists who have wormed their way into the ranks of advisory and consultancy positions, and even political office, within the GOP. More and more, we see the Republican Party establishment choose to compromise on the so-called "social issues," but that is not the conservative position.

Richardson continues arguing his case for counterfeit marriage:

It's not always easy to love Georgia, or love in it. Our state constitution explicitly forbids same-sex unions, and the local economy remains defiantly sluggish. Yet in spite of its blemishes, my would-be groom and I are deeply committed to our community, one whose values of faith and family we share.

Is he seriously trying to make a connection between Georgia's prohibition of bogus marriage and its sluggish economy? Yes, he is. He later attempts to argue that legalizing counterfeit marriage would be a great economic boost for Georgia, based on the claims of a UCLA "white paper" that imagines legalizing fake marriage in Georgia would result in around a thousand jobs and $5.5 million in sales tax revenue.

As for his assertion that he and his boyfriend are "deeply committed to" the "values of faith and family" of his community, I ask what "values of faith and family" would a sterile, homosexual pairing fall under? Certainly no faith that is based on the Bible could remotely be argued to support such "values," and we know that two men could never create a family. His efforts in the column to paint himself and his boyfriend as just a boring, Norman Rockwell spin-off may sell to the dull of moral, common sense, but not to those who know the unchangeable truth about homosexuality.

The subtlety of his "aww shucks, my boyfriend and I are just like everyone else" pitch is part of the sinister propaganda of the radical homosexual Left. He's not just like everyone else, wanting to be left alone to mind his own business. He's an outspoken homosexual activist, and his bogus, "aww shucks" angle hides the truth about the danger to our freedoms and our society that the imposition of same-sex "marriage" represents. One of the biggest dangers is to our freedom, because the state would force, under penalty of law, the acceptance and the accommodation of counterfeit marriage on all who know it's wrong. It would also force the indoctrination of school kids with the lies of the homosexual movement, telling them that it's normal and good, when it's anything but. These things are already happening, although not on a uniformly national scale.

Richardson finishes his piece with the common refrain of the homosexual "marriage" movement that all they want is the same right to marry as everyone else. That's a lie. They already have that same right, and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage, but that's not what this is about. This is about the normalization of homosexuality and the crushing of Christianity and the freedoms of Christians and others opposed to the mainstreaming of this perverse behavior. The fictional "rights" based on homosexual deviance and the genuine, God-given, First Amendment-protected rights of the vast majority of Americans cannot coexist. In this war for the soul of our nation, one must give way to the other. This is a war by the degenerate Left against truth, reason, and morality. Ultimately, they are at war against God, and while they may seem to be victorious here in the short term, in the end it is God Who is the Victor.