What is an "anti-family interloper"?

People who are interested in the future of the Republican party might want to read this post, which uses the term to describe a growing threat to the Republican Party:

In recent years, the conservative pro-life/pro-family base of the GOP has not only had to stand its ground against the Democratic Party, but now finds itself constantly having to fight off liberal, pro-abortion/anti-family interlopers within the Republican Party.

These liberal “Republicans” really have more in common with the Democratic Party than they do with Republicans, yet they insist on trying to water down and infect the Republican Party Platform with their liberal social agenda. We truly are in the midst of a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

StopTopinka.com spokesman Peter LaBarbera said he and other concerned citizens created the website “to get the truth about Judy Topinka's radical pro-‘gay’ activism out to the voters of Illinois. We know that most Republican voters in Illinois are still unaware of Topinka's liberal agenda, which includes helping hardened homosexual activists achieve their goal of using government power to force others to accept their lifestyle.

“Every year, Judy celebrates homosexuality by marching in Chicago's debauched ‘gay pride’ parade, but she's not talking about that now that she's running for governor as a Republican. We just feel the people have a right to know when a politician who claims to be conservative is championing immoral and unhealthy behavior,” he said.

So, as the gubernatorial primary heats up and heads into the final stretch, Illinois Republican voters have a choice to make. Do they want to continue to reward the failed “George Ryan” old guard by maintaining the status quo and electing Judy Baar Topinka, or do they intend to head in the new direction of party repair, and government reform?

If opposition to same sex marriage constitutes "radical pro-'gay' activism," what are the implications for the rest of us? I've repeatedly declared my opposition to same sex marriage; does this mean I'm now a radical pro-gay activist?

I doubt it. But I do think that the tough-to-interpret term "anti-family" is increasingly used as a synonym for gay. Homosexual. (And maybe even mere friends of these moral deviants, like the treacherous Judy Baar Topinka.)

Call me evil, but I can't leave the "hardened homosexual" reference alone. I know there are hardened people, and I'm sure that homosexuals count among their ranks, but how can this writer know that "homosexual activists" with a "goal of using government power to force others to accept their lifestyle" are "hardened"?

If in fact these activists need to use government power to force others into accepting them, I'd say they're weak and insecure people.

The very opposite of "hardened."

(Hey what is it with quotation marks today? I'm getting tired of them....)

Time will tell whether the Conservative Voice people have their analysis right. But if they do, that means that homosexuality (aka anti-family interlopers, aka "hardened homosexual activists") is one of the most important issues in the Republican Party, and it will determine the party's future.

I'm assuming they know that Bush got 25% of the gay vote.

Do they want him to give it back?

MORE: I haven't been following the Illinois governor's Republican primary race as I should. I notice that there are three candidates: Brady, Topinka (more here), and Oberweis. Topinka is said to be the front runner, and Brady is being called a Nader for not withdrawing from the race. (From a primary???)

I think it's worth noting that Oberweis (along with the activists who attack Topinka and the "interlopers") were promoters of the candidacy of Alan Keyes, which went down in a crushing defeat.

My theory is that consciously or unconsciously, they'd prefer a Hillary Clinton administration, and that all this fervent pushing for candidates certain to lose, while undoubtedly sincere in the ideological sense, may reflect a desire to regroup and position themselves as leaders of an out of power party. This makes sense, because if their party runs winning candidates, they'll remain forever marginalized, and forever out of power. (Better to lead losers than be led by winners.)

I'm glad I'm not an activist or an insider, and I try not to think of myself as an interloper. But I went from being a Democrat In Name Only to a Republican In Name Only, so maybe I'm an outerloper.

Far be it from someone like me to give Machiavellian advice to right wing social conservatives. (Fortunately, they'd never listen to me, so it's probably safe.) But if they paid me millions of dollars for advice and I was cynical enough to give it, I'd suggest that the policy of forcing a hardline social conservative loser onto the ticket is shortsighted. That's because, if the guy loses, their power and influence would wane even further than it has. No; what they need is for the Republicans to lose with a genuine liberal candidate. Someone as far to the left as it's possible for a Republican to be. A Chaffee type, perhaps. But of course, he'd have to actually lose. Obviously, they cannot support such a candidate directly. But they might look the other way at the right time, then undermine the campaign later. Either way, it would require a conscious decision to undermine their own party in order to take it over -- a little along the lines of destroying the village in order to save it. (Dear God, please don't let them hear about my Satanic Machiavellian victory plan for moral conservatives!)

One more thought on the anti-Topinka website. People who call it "intolerant" or "anti-gay" are missing the point, as are those who see it as a manifestation of "moral conservatism." There are moral conservatives and then there are moral conservatives, but there's just something buffoonishly silly about showing scenes like this (showing Ms. Topinka committing heretical abominations at a Gay Parade), accompanied by ever-louder warnings and exclamations of outrage:

I haven't watched the video, but I'm just wondering how much shock value it really has. I know that there are plenty of people who disapprove of gay marriage, and plenty of people who find the idea of homosexuality to be not only a turn-off, but even downright repulsive. But how persuasive is it in this day and age to demand that people become morally indignant over a gay parade?

I think it's manufactured outrage at best, and a losing strategy at worst. This is not to say that there aren't people who don't feel like fainting over the idea of a man kissing a man or a man wearing (gasp!) a dress. But how common is the moral indignation, the outraged sense of decency?

My point is that not all conservatives are morally outraged conservatives, nor does their lack of outrage mean they're against families or seeking to undermine the Republican Party. Some are South Park conservative types, and some are just plain old Americans with an all-American "F--k you!" attitude. They might think gay marriage is silly, they might even dare to laugh at the politically incorrect "fag jokes." But would they tremble in fear for the future of the nation because some web site has "exposed the truth" of a Republican woman who dared to be photographed with smiling young men who look like they might be their wives' hairdressers? I doubt it.

I think they might even roll their eyes.

AN UPDATE WHICH WANTS TO BE A FILM REVIEW: I watched the video (which can be streamed here or by clicking the picture above). There are men shown holding hands, a couple of men in dresses, a couple of women baring their breasts (all pixel-covered), and at one point there appear to be two men engaged in simulated sex on a float (but the "action" is so heavily covered with pixels that it's hard to tell what they're doing). At another point (oh, the humanity!) an obese man gently whisks his whip through the air while walking slowly behind another man. The same scenes of Ms. Topinka smiling and waving are repeated throughout the film -- as if to argue that it's "her" parade. (In these parades, politicians usually drive by in cars, smiling and waving.)

Considering that Topinka is a Republican who doesn't support same sex marriage, what would really be a shocker would be to discover that she received anything more than token applause (by selected supporters) at the event.

All in all, it's pretty lame. Definitely not a turn on.

I'll say this for the film: the somber, funeral dirge-style music which is played throughout (the sort you'd find in a JFK assassination retro-documentary) adds an amusingly surreal quality.

But hardened viewers -- the type who want real flesh and like their parades racy and raunchy -- are best advised to skip this one.

(I recommend vintage Mardi Gras footage.)

AFTERTHOUGHT: Nobody likes mealy-mouthed, promise-em-anything, business-as-usual politicians, of either party. And I'll say this for the angry Alan Keyes wing: they tell you where they stand. The problem for them (and, IMO, for the GOP), is that too many people just plain don't like their stand.

But hey, the Daily Kos crowd is doing more than their share of dirty work for Karl Rove. I guess it's only fair that the right wing equivalent would do the same thing for Hillary. . .

UPDATE (03/03/06): Via InstaPundit, David Bernstein reports that incumbent Democrat governor Blagojevich seeks to appoint to Illinois's hate crimes commission an "active Member of a racist, anti-gay, anti-Semitic organization." (Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.)

(What can I say? I didn't mean to ignore the Democrats, but I just sort of assumed... You know....)