Posted in CATHOLIC, FAITH, gay, lesbian, lgbt, POPE, religion, VATICAN

Humble Pope Francis Opens Dialogue About LGBT Community

Pope Francis

The Pope is the supreme leader of the Catholic church. He is the voice of the church and sets the tone for what he wants to accomplish while he holds the office of Pope. After Pope Benedict XVI abdicated the throne, the leaders of the Catholic Church elected a supreme leader that pours over with humility. Now, I’m a political guy, not really a religion-kind of guy, but for some reason I have found myself drawn to Pope Francis since I first heard about him while sitting at the airport in Tokyo, Japan earlier this year. I follow certain religious leaders to supplement my desire to become a better person in every aspect of my life. I’m not a Catholic, nor do I believe in any God. I never felt any sort of connection between Pope Benedict XVI and me, and yet I find myself so intrigued by Pope Francis. He chose his name in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi – a man that stood for peace and poverty. Throughout the last few months I have seen such a sense of humility from Pope Francis that almost no other major leader has shown in modern times. There are so many stories out there about how Pope Francis has stood up to his desire for peace, poverty and a better tomorrow.

They say he wanted to be the “People’s Pope.” He wanted to be portrayed as a servant for the people and not the ruler of the people. Within weeks of the Pope’s rise to the Papacy, Pope Francis visited women in a prison. He didn’t just visit ordinary women, but criminals – those that many believe to be the lowest class of people. He kneeled down before a few women and washed their feet. Washing of the feet has been a common practice in Catholicism to signify humility, but the Pope’s predecessors had limited it to male priests. Not only did the Pope wash the feet of female criminals, but he washed the feet of two Muslim women. It raised the ire of many within the Catholic church.

Last week, Pope Francis embarked on his first trip since being elected Pope. He flew to Brazil, a part of the world the Argentinian-born Pontifex is familiar with. Security found themselves in a nightmare as the Pope was bombarded by faithful believers once he arrived in the country. He rode in the infamous Pope mobile that is usually surrounded by bulletproof glass. His Pope mobile had opened sides allowing the Pope to reach out, touch people and kiss babies.

Pope Francis's Pope Mobile in Brazil, 2013
Pope Francis’s Pope Mobile in Brazil, 2013

As most high-ranking officials are only taken to the highlights of a country they are visiting, the Pope had a different agenda in Brazil. He chose to visit one of the poorest parts of the country. Pope Francis walked among the poorest and provided them with a glimmer of hope. He let them know they are not the forgotten caste of people they always seem to internalize.

Pope Francis during Papal Press Conference, 2013
Pope Francis during Papal Press Conference, 2013

Probably the biggest event from this week came during the Pope’s flight back to the Vatican. He held an unprecedented press conference that lasted well over an hour. During that time he was asked a question about gay celibate priests and the rumors of “gay lobbyists” within the Vatican. His response captured headlines across the world.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? You can’t marginalize these people.”

Those with more liberal understandings of the Bible proclaimed his answer to be a major shift within the Catholic Church. Many literalists stated this is nothing new and isn’t really news. And for those stating he was only talking about celibate gays, the Vatican confirmed this is not true. I don’t believe his proclamation was a major shift, but I also disagree with the notion that what he said shouldn’t be news. Too many people marginalize gay people as “homosexuals, ” “sexual deviants,” “sinners,” or having “same-sex attractions.” Pope Francis said none of these things. He used the word “gay.” While this may seem trivial to most, it does show the Pope using words to describe us in a more human way. “Homosexual,” is a scientific term, as is “same-sex attractions,” but he didn’t say these words, he said, “gay.” When many Christian leaders are asked questions about gay people,  they typically invoke the Bible and say the generic line, “I love gay people, but I hate their sin.” The Pope failed to take this path either, reinforcing a human response to the issue of homosexuality. In what I felt was the most humble of things said yesterday, the Pope, the leader of the Catholic church said, “Who am I to judge?” Pope Francis is the man that is most knowledgeable about Catholicism, he is the one that so many turn to for answers and yet he says he is not here to judge. Too many people do judge on the basis of sexual orientation and attempt to say homosexuality is one of the biggest sins to commit. While I personally don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, many others do and instead of showing love and compassion, they forget their own transgressions in the name of Christianity. The Pope sent the message that gay people are human and should be revered as such. This wasn’t a major victory, but it is a small, a very small step in the right direction for the Christian faith to treat gays and lesbians with the dignity we deserve.

Saint Francis of Assisi
Saint Francis of Assisi

There are a lot more changes that have to be made in the attitude religions take in the way they treat gay people. I am glad to see the Pope open that dialogue yesterday, even if he never says another positive thing about gay people. I feel refreshed to see a humbling Pope and I look forward to seeing what Pope Francis has up his robe while he speaks from his pulpit in the future. I know there will be plenty of differences in ideals in the future between the Pope and I, but I enjoy what I have seen so far.

Posted in current events, democrat, election, gay, lgbt, news, politics, republican, Uncategorized

Could You Vote for an LGBT Supporting Republican? Vote in the Poll

Exit polling from the 2012 Presidential Election
Exit polling from the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections

The breakdown of the demographics of voters in an election has always fascinated me. You can typically know that for the most part, a specific demographic of individuals is going to vote for a certain political party or a ballot initiative based upon their demographics. Gay people, women, other minorities and the poor are more likely to vote for democrats compared to Caucasians, the rich, Christians and straight men are more likely to vote for a republican candidate.

The midterm elections of 2014 are already shaping up to have many interesting races to follow. In Pennsylvania the incumbent governor may become the first governor to be unseated by a challenger in the state’s history. There is also a real possibility of Pennsylvania nominating its first female governor. The governor’s race in Texas will be intriguing to watch as the state legislature continues to pass polarizing initiatives and Rick Perry is not going to seek reelection (Could he be gearing up for another run for the White House?). The mayoral and city comptroller races in New York City that will be held later this year featuring two candidates with sex scandals are sure to be entertaining.


As the dynamics of the 2014 elections are beginning to take shape, I pondered a question that I want to conduct some research on for a future blog entry that I will present before the November 2014 elections.

As a gay man, I have considered myself to be conservative for a while now. My support for Republican candidates has been swaying over the years as I have become more disgruntled by the way Republican candidates pander to the neo-conservative base of their party. John McCain was one of the most moderate conservatives to run for president in many years. Rumors say he wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2008, but the conservative base refused that notion and instead he chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. One of the reasons Mitt Romney was able to be the governor of the liberal state of Massachusetts because of his willingness to cross party lines and being a moderate. He too was forced to become a hardline Republican to win over the pocketbooks of large neo-conservative donors, which makes up only a small fraction of the republican party. Most Americans want a moderate president, Congress, governors and state legislatures. I often feel disenfranchised by both of the main political parties in this country because we get two polarizing candidates instead of the more moderate politicians.

Senator John McCain
Senator John McCain

Bipartisanship is becoming a bad word in this country and each side prefer to stonewall their opposing party. One of the latest examples of this comes to us from Wyoming Senatorial candidate Liz Cheney. She recently made a statement about bipartisanship in Obama’s administration by saying, “Instead of cutting deals with the president’s allies in Congress, we can be opposing them every step of the way.” Now don’t get me wrong, Congresspeople that treat bipartisanship as a disease come from both sides of the political aisle. I’m getting a bit off topic here, so I digress.

I assume the majority of my blog’s viewers are either gay or support the LGBT community. Republicans have given a bad name to themselves by becoming the “moral crusaders” over the years. I believe over the next few years we will see some republicans evolve on the issue of LGBT rights. We’ve already seen it with some lesser known Republicans that ran for president in 2012. Former Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, Jr. acknowledge his support for civil unions for gay couples. We also saw Former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson support full marriage equality for LGBT couples. He ran for the Republican nomination before dropping out and winning the Libertarian nomination for president. He was the candidate I supported after Jon Huntsman dropped out of the nominating process. With an impending evolution of republicans, I wonder how many of you could support a Republican candidate for political office if they supported equal rights for the LGBT community in America.

Former Ambassador to China with his family including his adoptive children.
Former Ambassador to China with his family including his adoptive children.

Now to get down to the meat of my intention for this entry. I would like to know if those that identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, transexual/transgendered, or a heterosexual supporter of gay rights would vote for a republican candidate for any political office if the candidate was supportive of LGBT rights. What if they are an active supporter and would advocate for LGBT rights? What if they were passive and while support gay rights they would not actively campaign for the passage of pro-LGBT legislation? Why would you, or why would you not?

For my straight conservative friends out there, could you support either scenarios I have painted above? Why or why not? And, if no, could you support a candidate that is running as a democrat if they were against gay rights? Why or why not?

I have provided multiple methods of voting and letting your opinion be heard. You can vote in the polls below, you can answer in the comments, you can tweet me at PoliticalQueers, or you can email me at For the sake of this entry, please refrain from saying couldn’t vote for a candidate because of other issues you may disagree with. For instance many might say they couldn’t vote for a republican because they’re pro-choice and the candidate is pro-life. Think only of the fact the candidate is a republican and supports gay rights. Let me know if you email or tweet me your opinion if you voted in the poll as well.

I plan to publish my unscientific findings at another time in the future. I want to get a good turnout for this poll and ask that you pass the poll around to your networks. Also, I plan to use some comments I get. Let me know if you want to remain anonymous. If you don’t state you want to be anonymous I will assume I can identify you in the future post. I look forward to seeing the results! Thank you so much for helping me on this.

Posted in crime, crime and punishment, current events, news, race, racism, self defense, stand your ground, Uncategorized

We Can’t Keep Sweeping Race Under the Rug

Trayvon Martin

In 2005, I was wrapping up my first year at Missouri State University. I chose to take summer courses at the local community college in my hometown. One of the courses I took was an introduction to sociology course. One thing I learned from that course that still resonates with me today was when our professor called a student out on the issue of race. I can’t remember the exact issue the man brought up, but I do remember her response. She said, “I will accept dissenting opinions that are based on fact, but one thing I will not tolerate is sweeping the issue of race under the rug.”

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. The case caused the issue of race in America to resurface. While I without a doubt believe the prosecution did a poor job of proving their case and never wanted to prosecute George Zimmerman in the first place, I believe there are several elements that prove George Zimmerman was negligent in his actions that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin. So many people wrote on Twitter and other social media that the justice system failed us in this trial. The truth of the matter is our justice system didn’t fail us in this trial but the prosecution did.

George Zimmerman
George Zimmerman

I don’t believe race was as big of an issue as the mainstream media portrayed it to be, but it has reignited the debate on race relations in America. Was Trayvon Martin profiled? Without a doubt he was. I just don’t know if he was profiled because of his race, or for the fact that he was a suspicious individual walking down the street in a hoodie. I’m not in any way excusing George Zimmerman’s profiling of Trayvon, but what exactly he profiled about Martin is up for debate.

Don West and Mark O’Mara, the two defense attorneys for George Zimmerman made some startling comments after the not guilty verdict was handed down that makes me worry about the future of America. Don West stated that the prosecution of George Zimmerman was disgraceful. Mark O’Mara said that if George Zimmerman had been a black man this case would have never been tried. O’Mara is the same man that days before the verdict was read stated that race wasn’t an issue in the case on ABC News. I responded to Mark O’Mara’s comments fairly strongly on Twitter. I wrote,

“GZ’s attorneys ignore the fact that blacks are disproportionately represented in criminal cases. If GZ was black, he’d face death penalty.”

The fact of the matter is that while African-Americans make up approximately 12% of the American population, they represent over 40% of those incarcerated. Inequalities exist in the American justice system and there is no denying that fact.

For those that have followed the trial of George Zimmerman from the very start, you may remember that the defense originally intended to claim the “Stand Your Ground Law” to defend George Zimmerman. The law ended up getting pushed aside so the defense could focus more on Zimmerman’s right to self-defense.

Marissa Alexander
Marissa Alexander

For those unfamiliar with “Stand Your Ground,” in Florida, it’s the right for individuals to not back down when they feel threatened in a situation. This trial exposed gaping flaws in this law. More damning evidence that this law is flawed and the inequalities of minorities in the criminal justice system comes to light in the 2012 trial of Marissa Alexander of Florida. She shot warning shots into a wall to warn her abusive husband that she was standing her ground. She referenced stand your ground in her defense, but she ended up getting charged with aggravated assault and was offered a plea deal of three years in prison. She rejected the plea deal by the same prosecutor that reluctantly pressed charges against George Zimmerman. She opted to go to trial. Marissa Alexander, a woman that had graduated with her masters degree, had three children and had been hospitalized in the past by her abusive husband was found guilty by a jury of her peers and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Another example of how blacks are treated poorly by the justice system comes in the form of penalties for cocaine. Crack cocaine is more likely to be used by poor black people compared to affluent whites using powder cocaine. Before President Barack Obama signed the ‘Fair Sentencing Act,’ in 2010, people caught with crack cocaine could be charged more harshly compared to individuals possessing powder cocaine. Under federal law there was a five year minimum sentence for the possession of crack. That gaping injustice was patched up by the Fair Sentencing Act being signed into law.

Crack Cocaine
Crack Cocaine

It’s no secret that black people are given a harder time in the criminal justice system across the United States. They are disproportionately represented in prisons, they receive stricter penalties when they commit crimes, and they are more likely to be victims of violent crimes. When we begin advocating for equal justice for all, we can progress as a nation. We can’t continue to ignore the issue of race and crime in America. Trayvon Martin had helped us to remember this problem we have in America still exists today. We must begin a national dialogue for real reform in the American justice system. If there is one thing Trayvon Martin taught me, it’s that we can’t continue sweeping race under the rug any more.

Posted in boycott, current events, film, gay, lesbian, lgbt, movies, Uncategorized

Help Fund “Traditional Marriage” Proponents – Go See Ender’s Game


The interest people have in science fiction has always eluded me. I have always had a hard time wrapping my head around worlds, characters and events that could never happen in real life. For me I have to watch a movie or read a book and think it could happen. Sci-fi was too unbelievable with me and I’ve had a difficult time getting into most story lines. That was until my recreational reading teacher handed by Orson Scott Card’s science fiction novel, Ender’s Game during my freshman year of high school. Ender’s Game was the first book I really got into that I enjoyed. I recently found out the Orson Scott Card’s novel was going to be turned into a Hollywood movie that is slated to be released in November of this year. I was excited about it until I got on my homepage of WordPress and saw a blog post by Queer Landia titled, “Boycott called for upcoming movie “Ender’s Game”, Orson Scott Card begs for tolerance.” At first I thought the call for a boycott was probably blowing something out of proportion. I was shocked on the other side of the link.

Orson Scott Card

Orson Scott Card has a long history of speaking out against equality for gay people. He wrote an article entitled, “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality,” letting people know that you can’t be a Mormon and be a gay person. Card also encouraged states to keep laws on the books criminalizing same-sex love. A proponent of ex-gay therapy, he believes that being gay is a result of molestation and abuse as children and refutes the idea that there is a biological basis for same-sex attraction. Just last year he called same-sex attraction a “reproductive dysfunction.” Not only is Card one of the largest financial donors to the National Organization of Marriage, or NOM, Card became a board member on the organizations board of directors in 2009.

Shortly after the California Supreme Court declared a law banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, Card took to the media again announcing his disgust with the court’s ruling in, “Orson Scott Card: State job is not to redefine marriage.” While I am struggling with not critiquing his article, I did want to point out some interesting things he said just five years ago. Card implied that a gay relationship is nothing more than a friendship. What struck me the most was Card’s extremist portrait about what he will do if the government backs marriage equality. He wrote;

“Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down…”

I am deeply disappointed in the extreme stance Card has taken in terms of homosexuality through the years. I was looking forward to seeing the movie Ender’s Game, but I won’t be seeing the movie any time soon, if ever at all. I refuse to give a person, business or organization one cent of my money or patronage when I know my financial support will be funneled into anti-gay movement that fight to make me a lesser citizen than another, I cannot rest easy in that fact.

An online forum, Geek Out is now asking people to ‘Skip Ender’s Game.’ While any individual certainly has the right to see the movie if they so choose, I feel it is important to let them know their money will finance Olson Scott Card’s continuing attack on marriage equality and help fund the National Organization for Marriage. With the news of a call to boycott Ender’s Game, Olson Scott Card attempted to paint those that are choosing to boycott his film as intolerant. He recently wrote:

“Ender’s Game” is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

Pot meet the kettle. It’s downright wrong to believe the gay rights movement didn’t exist in 1984 and that the issue of gay marriage is now a moot point because of the recent Supreme Court’s ruling. The fight for marriage equality is far from over.

Tyler Coates

Not everyone in the LGBT community is supportive of Geek Out’s boycott. Tyler Coates, known for his portrayal as the non-stereotypical “Disappointing Gay Best Friend,” recently wrote about why the gay community should not boycott Ender’s Game. Do you agree with him?

There is an array of information on the Internet supporting the claim that Card is a staunch supporter of everything not gay. I hope that you will consider taking a stand against this vitriole and say no to Card’s staunchly anti-gay sentiments. As people give him their money through movie sales, Card will use that money against our causes. We cannot allow that to happen. Will you still plan to see Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game?

I leave you with one final question. Will Mike Huckabee sponsor a day at the movies?

Posted in 4th of July, current events, FREEDOM, gay, Independence Day, lesbian, lgbt, news

A 4th of July Message


Today, we celebrate the 237th anniversary of the United States independence from England. Today, we celebrate the freedom our forefathers fought so hard to give us. Today, we celebrate the freedoms our forefathers bestowed upon each and every one of us. Today, we celebrate the unanimous independence declaration our founding fathers adopted with the words inscribed on the most historic piece in American existence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Today, we celebrate the United States of America.


With the recent events in Egypt and the ongoing situation in Syria, we sometimes forget that we take the freedoms that have been bestowed upon us for granted. Where else can we go and speak openly and freely as we can in the United States? For most of us, we don’t have to worry whether we’ll return home once we leave because of ongoing political warfare being waged in our city streets. We live in a mostly peaceful country and we enjoy a significant amount of rights that cannot be infringed upon. Our Constitution is the longest serving living Constitution in the entire world. While poverty certainly is a major concern in the United States, we are not a third world country where food is scarce, where we have a widely corrupt government and have to worry whether we’ll have clean drinking water or not. We are given the tools to pursue the lives we want to live, with limited restrictions.

While we don’t always agree with where this country should go and how to get there, and have serious partisanship issues, we live in the greatest country in the world. I am proud to be an American. Last week, we celebrated major leaps forward in the United States in regards to treating all of our citizens equally. We still have significant work to do in a lot of areas, but I am excited for the path we are headed down. One day we all will be treated the same regardless of our skin color, our gender, our religion, or even our sexual orientation. For a moment, we can set aside our differences and unite around each other to celebrate the birth of this great nation. The fights we will have can be put on hold for a day as we reflect the true nature and intent of the United States of America.


As you go about your day today, take some time to be grateful for the great nation we live in. Take time to think about those that have given the ultimate sacrifice in the name of our country. Think of those people that are still out in the world protecting our homeland and cannot celebrate this great day with their loved ones. Enjoy your time with your friends and family. We truly are privileged to live in the best country in the world. I hope you enjoy great food, great friends, great family and see some spectacular fireworks. Stay safe America, and please remember to not drink and drive! Happy 4th of July everyone!

Posted in current events, discrimination, lgbt, LGBT RIGHTS, marriage, marriage equality, news, politics, Uncategorized

Words of Wisdom for the Anti-Gay Republican Party


If there has ever been a time to enshrine discrimination into our Constitution, the time is now. As the United States Supreme Court has now ruled that Article 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and the defendants in the Proposition 8 case didn’t have standing to bring their case to the federal level, marriage equality sweeping across the United States is all but inevitable. Republicans are now in a frenzy to drum up support for a Constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They’re already coming out in droves announcing a slippery slope into legalized polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia.

During the midterm elections next year, and in the 2016 United States Presidential election we are going to see a wedge between the two main political parties that will be polar opposites. The top tier Democrat candidates will support full marriage equality while the top tier Republicans will support a federal marriage amendment defining “traditional marriage.” If the Republican Party wants to remain a viable party at the federal level, they are going to have to redefine the way they handle the issue of marriage equality.

Anti-Gay Kansas Republican Senator Tim Huelskamp
Anti-Gay Kansas Republican Representative Tim Huelskamp (District 1)

The latest attempt at enshrining discrimination into the United States Constitution comes from United States Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), who recently introduced the dead on arrival Marriage Protection Amendment. The bill seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. While there is no chance of this bill gaining much steam, it shows Republicans are still determined  to deny LGBT couples the same rights given to straight people under the law.

The problem with neo-conservative politicians continuing to adopt the stance of a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage is that it’s becoming an out-of-touch view. It’s no secret by now that people are changing their attitude towards marriage equality. While several years ago a majority of Americans supported amendments banning same-sex marriage, that view is quickly changing. Today, polls show a majority of Americans support marriage equality. In order for Republicans to continue to be viable political candidates, they must adopt a different attitude towards marriage equality.

Former Senator Rick Santorum

In 2012, there were varying platforms represented on the stage of Republican presidential debates. The majority of the candidates supported a marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann ran almost exclusively on the anti-gay platform. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry both supported an anti-gay marriage amendment, but were less outspoken about the issue when compared to the other two candidates. Jon Huntsman, who is likely the most balanced candidate to run for president in recent history supported civil unions and domestic partnerships. Ron Paul didn’t believe the federal government should be in the business of marriage at all. Gary Johnson, who ended up dropping out of the Republican primary race to secure the Libertarian presidential nomination (and my vote for president) as well as little known candidate who was the first openly gay Republican candidate for president, Fred Karger both supported full marriage equality.

We’re likely to see a reemergence of Rick Santorum in 2016 along with several other candidates that, while not as outspoken on the issue of gay rights as Santorum will share the same sentiment. Democrats will bring candidates to their stage proclaiming their absolute support for marriage equality.

Prop 8 Plaintiffs Paul Katami's and Jeff Zarrillo's wedding - June 28, 2013
Prop 8 Plaintiffs Paul Katami’s and Jeff Zarrillo’s wedding – June 28, 2013

The clearest examples to illustrate the need for the Republican party to reexamine their stance on gay rights comes from four major ballot initiatives from 2012. Four states – Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington all had some sort of gay marriage initiative on the ballot, such as the legalization of marriage equality, upholding marriage equality or a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In each state the people voted on the side of marriage equality – an unprecedented pattern breaking the long line of people voting to ban same-sex marriage. People are slowly warming up to equality, and if the Republican party continues to be on the side of discrimination, the Republican party will be on the losing end of the race for the White House and many House, Senate and Governorships throughout the United States over the next few years.

The answer to the Republican’s gay marriage problem is quite simple. We’re never going to get 100% Republican support for marriage equality. Some Republican senators such as Mark Kirk of Illinois, Alaskan senator Lisa Murkowski and the senator from Ohio, Rob Portman have come out in support of marriage equality, but there will always only be a small minority of Republicans supporting gay marriage. In order for the Republican party to remain a powerful source, they must distance themselves from dealing with marriage equality at all by the federal government. I have advocated this for many years. While I believe gay rights must be dealt with by the federal government, the Republican party ought to adopt one of the pillars of the Republican party; leave it up to the states. In order for the Republican party to continue to be a relevant political party in America, they must adopt a federal laissez-faire attitude towards marriage equality. They must believe in leaving the issue of marriage equality up to each individual state. In this manner, they can stick to their ignorant principles while not looking too extreme to the more moderate voters.

I don’t expect to see my advice for the Republican Party to go anywhere beyond this blog, but my advice is one of the most important ideas the Republican party can adopt to increase their chances of maintaining or gaining seats in the House and Senate in 2014 and 2016 as well as reclaiming the White House in 2016.