In a post yesterday called Republicans, Gays And Larry Craig: Is The GOP Anti-Gay? Marc Ambinder makes the following statement:
It's absurd to label every politician or person who opposes gay marriage and gays in the military as anti-gay. Many aren't. That doesn't mean they're pro-gay -- it's just that for them the issue of homosexuality is not important.
They may not be homophobic, but they are definitely heterosexist. They may not hate the sinner, but they definitely think that their "lack of the sin" makes them superior to gay and lesbian people and therefore deserving of special rights that gay Americans are denied including the 1,200 federal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
If homosexuality truly was not important to some politicians as Marc asserts, then they would not be so adamant in their opposition to giving same-sex couples the option to marry. They would not be opposed because, well, it just would not be important enough for them to get worked up about. They would not have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal Marriage Amendment or continuously spout rhetoric about marriage being between a man and a woman and anything else will cause the crumbling of Western civilization.
Marc then goes on to acknowledge that a large part of the Republican base is anti-gay:
But Ruffini must also recognize: a large and influential segment of the Republican Party's activist base is anti-gay. Not anti-gay rights -- though, of course, they're "anti" that too -- but anti-gay, meaning that that homosexuality itself is the problem; that the gay rights movement represents the apex of libertinism; that homosexuality is dangerous; that it is anti-Biblical; that it deserves the shame of the culture and not the sanction of the government.
And to say that:
A large segment of the Democratic base approves of, tolerates, and favors government recognition of homosexuality.
I have been in many settings with many gay people and not once have I heard anyone say that what we are after is government recognition of homosexuality. Not once. What I have heard expressed, if not articulated in just this way, is that we do not want the government to promote or provide special consideration or treatment to heterosexuals while denying equal treatment under the law to LGBT Americans.
To me that is the crux of the reason why the LGBT civil rights movement exists. Many in power in the Republican Party oppose equal treatment for LGBT Americans and support what can only be construed as special rights for heterosexual Americans. For that reason, I believe its fair to say that the GOP, despite a few exceptions, is anti-gay.