I love how the author implies that acceptance of gay marriage is a prerequisite for acceptance of gays period. They are different issues, regardless of what the Gaystapo says. It is possible to accept gays, and still consider the ancient institution of Marriage to be intended for the raising of children and not just a societal label that all have rights to.
Well, there's this former politician, a Republican, who's on the air with a radio talk show in my area. He's also an openly gay guy. Demo-rats actually tried to use that AGAINST him, stressing things about "his BOYfriend" in political debates, etc.. Yet Carl DeMaio is VERY conservative on most issues. On social issues, he's kinda 'libertarian', which I think is the better position to take. And he's NOT "an activist" by any means. And I suspect that OTHER members of the Republican party (who happen to be gay) are the same way, and would EQUALLY get MY vote.
The thing worth re-pointing out: It was a DEMO-RAT that kept HARPING on his Republican opponent being gay. That Demo-Rat became mayor of San Diego (Bob Filner). THEN, he got ousted for being a sexual harassment predator. It shows you what kind of guy he is.
The only problem with the 'gay' issue (that I see) is how IN YOUR FACE the activists are. The moralists (their only opposition) are in the minority. Most people (as I see it) take a 'live and let live' stance on this. They don't want their OWN lives disrupted, but think that others shouldn't have THEIR lives disrupted either. So we don't need 'in your face' activism, OR changing the definition of what 'marriage' is to suit 1.8% of the population. [I support Civil Unions for equal legal protection and so did Arnold Swarzenegger when he was Gov. of California].
Why gummints got involved in the whole 'marriage' thing is beyond me. It is possible for gummints to get OUT of it. Just call ANY marriage a 'civil union' for legal purposes, STOP ABusing the tax code by using different rates for married vs single, and basically ELIMINATE the "grievances" that the gay marriage issue is trying to resolve. Then nobody has to be 'forced' to accept anything they don't like. People can MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
And when it comes to child custody and support issues, actual marriage is not even required in the legal dispute, at least not in California. So gummint involvement in marriage, including the determination of who can marry and who cannot, is just an IRRITANT. It's just not needed.
I'm perfectly happy, as a Republican, with welcoming and recognizing the 'LGBTQ' community (as so-named in Trump's speech), and welcoming them into the party. But I'd expect them to act more like CONSERVATIVES, in that they're "not activists" about it.
Worth pointing out: the 'moralists' aren't CONSERVATIVES. They are 'activists' in their own way. Conservatives seek to work with things as they are and NOT make radical changes. Activists, on the other hand (and I include the 'moralist' activists in this), want nothing BUT 'radical changes'. So openly accepting and acknowledging 'LGBTQ' people is a good step forward, without the 'radical' element you would see in the Demo-Rat party. I think it was done appropriately, without the usual one-sided activism you see from the Demo-Rats.
Most cultures in this world are in agreement with Republicans on this issue, regardless of how the press tries to make it appear the opposite.
In fact, the USA today is one of the most TOLERANT nations with respect to 'LGBTQ', and SHOULD be. If you look at Obaka's favorite religion, Islam, you'll find a LOT of hate in there, and nations that embrace Shariah would (obviously) NOT treat 'LGBTQ' people well. Neither did the Nazis (pink triangle) back in WW2. Something to think about.
It falls under the argument that 'most people are really conservative', which is why Republican candidates need to stop leaning to the left after the primaries, and instead SELL CONSERVATISM to the 'undecided'. And, I bet Trump will say ON MESSAGE without deviating at all.