Micah Clark continues to beat his anti-gay war drums. In the latest American Family Association email to his sheeple, the pint-sized religious extremist complains about Carl Brizzi's recent announcement of a non-discimination policy that includes sexual orientation.
Last week the Indianapolis Star revealed that Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi had approved a "sexual orientation" policy for his office just days after the Indianapolis City Council rejected a similar, but more radical plan. It also came on the heels of Governor Daniels adopting a "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" policy which sparked a huge controversy among social conservatives in Indiana.
It would be hard to interpret Brizziâ€™s move as anything other than a slap in the face of almost every Republican on the Indianapolis City Council who voted against Proposal # 68 in April. (One Republican council member, Scott Keller, strongly supports the homosexual political agenda and is the co-author of Proposal 68.)
Brizzi is often mentioned as an up and coming political leader, but this lurch to the left will not help endear him to the base of the party. Many political leaders, particularly establishment Republicans, still do not "get it." They want voters to think they support traditional values. Then they turn around once in office and pander to homosexual activists as if we stopped watching.
As you can tell, I find it pretty frustrating when Republicans who campaigned as pro-family or conservatives place marriage protection in jeopardy by embracing parts of the homosexual agenda such as sexual orientation or domestic partnership policies after they are elected. Those of us who take the heat for criticizing these GOP leaders are quickly portrayed as extremists. I fully expect this to happen again if my editorial is printed in the Indianapolis Star.
Yet, if it does, here is something to remember, and perhaps we should begin to ask these politicians, "just who is truly betraying the principles of your party?" The following policy statement comes from the Republican Party National Platform:
"We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law." (emphasis Micah's)