The Left Is So Shallow! So Hypocritical! Such Frauds!

They're People, Not Political Statements

Bruce Jenner and Randy Boehning shouldn't be subject to political litmus tests because of their sexuality.

By Susan MilliganApril 30, 2015 | 10:55 a.m. EDT+ More

Here’s a question of individual freedom and choice: Should lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people be allowed to favor a party that does not believe they deserve protection under the law?

If that seems like an absurd query, it’s because it is. But it’s getting asked – as it has been before – by people who cannot comprehend why former Olympian Bruce Jenner, who is transitioning from male to female, is a Republican. Or, for that matter, how a North Dakota legislator who voted against a gay rights bill could do so when it turns out (“out” being the operative word here) that he himself is gay.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Gay Marriage]

Part of the problem with the acceptance of LGBT people is that such individuals are too often seen not as, well, individuals, but as walking political statements. A gay man can’t just be a guy from Cleveland who likes the Browns, never had much use for plaid and prefers Cajun cuisine over French. Instead, such a hypothetical man is viewed as a Gay Man, as though his sexuality defines him entirely. The growing acceptance of not just LGBT people but gay marriage has developed because more and more people realized that they had children, friends and co-workers who were gay or lesbian, and the fact of their sexuality was just one thing about them – not something worth thinking much about, let alone judging. But when we impose a political party litmus test on people because of their sexuality, we are playing right into the disrespect and stereotyping the anti-gay contingent is accused of exercising.

So Jenner is a Republican. So what? As The Weekly Standard’s Philip Terzian noted, can’t Jenner just be a human being? Maybe Jenner wants lower taxes and less government regulation. He might not like what some people in his party say about transgender people, but should that be the only, or even defining, question in choosing a political party? Does anyone ask Roman Catholic women how they can bring themselves to worship in a church that tells them they must be incubators at will, not using birth control, and can never serve as priests?

[READ: Views You Can Use: Gay Marriage Gets Its Day in Court]

Then there’s Randy Boehning, a Republican state representative from Fargo, North Dakota. Boehning had voted against a bill that would have given legal protection to gays and lesbians. It turns out that Boehning had been trolling for (male) dates and sex on the social network app Grindr. A local gay man noticed Boehning’s photo in the paper and thought it looked remarkably like someone he had communicated with on Grindr. Boehning ended up having to come out as gay. Why? Is it more offensive if a gay person votes against basic human rights than if a straight person does? Why does the heterosexual get more freedom to think and vote as he or she pleases?

Hypocrisy is generally the word used to justify reducing non-heterosexuals to their sexual orientation, as though they are somehow betraying the cause by not being a vocal activist for LGBT people. Worse things are said about people still in the closet. Yet that actually makes some sort of sense. When former Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was found apparently soliciting gay sex in an airport men’s room, he was denounced as a hypocrite for denying his sexuality and then voting against gay rights bills on the floor. In fact, Craig, if he is indeed gay (he denied it) was being painfully consistent with self-hatred. Someone who seeks out anonymous sex in a public restroom – gay or straight – is not someone who thinks very highly of himself. It’s not a huge leap that he would extend the same disrespect to his voting record.

Supporting human rights is a goal that should be shared by all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation. Demanding that LGBT people adhere to a certain political framework is not only insulting, but it undermines the very goal of universal acceptance.