LaSavlia: "I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been."


Early last week, one of the founders of GOProud, Jimmy LaSalvia, made headlines with his announcement that he is leaving the GOP due (among other things) to its "tolerance of bigotry."

A few things are striking in LaSalvia's remarks (posted to his blog), however, and deserve to be looked at more closely.

The two main reasons claimed by LaSalvia for his departure from the GOP are summarized in this quotation [emphasis added]:

I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been, but I just can’t bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer. You see, I just don’t agree with the big-government ‘conservatives’ who run the party now.

The other reason I am leaving is the tolerance of bigotry in the GOP.

Jimmy LaSalviaFirst, it should be noted that LaSalvia doesn't cite examples or give any evidence of this supposed "tolerance of bigotry," but in context and on background it can easily be inferred that he is speaking about those who oppose the radical redefinition of marriage.

LaSalvia here is simply parroting the dishonest and ugly smears of the radical same-sex 'marriage' movement, of which he has long been a member, saying that those who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and who put children's best interest at the center and pivot of the question, are bigots and haters - a claim which is as false as it is offensive.

But perhaps more surprising for its sheer nonsensicalness and illogicality is LaSalvia's claims that he is "every bit as conservative" as always and that he opposes big government.

First, regarding his claim of opposing big government: this is simply untenable. As NOM's good friend Ryan T. Anderson has saliently observed:

Same-sex marriage rejects the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father.

Once marriage is removed from this basis in biology, its arbitrary and shapeless new form will be bound to lead precisely to growth in government! Anderson again [emphasis added]:

[I]f marriage has no form and serves no essential purpose, how would society protect the needs of children — the prime victims of our nonmarital sexual culture — without government growing more intrusive and more expensive?

FamilyAnderson here is following logical reasoning to point to a likely and probably socio-economic result of experimenting with the norms of marriage.

But we can offer a further and even more emphatic counterpoint to LaSalvia's groundless claim to the title "conservative" simply by looking at the brief history of marriage redefinition.

The same-sex 'marriage' movement has already, in plain fact, utilized the mechanisms of intrusive "big government" in the furtherance of its agenda: from judicial activism to invasive laws that target speech and thought on the basis of ideology; from state-sponsored indoctrination programs masquerading as "curricula" to politically-motivated choices with respect to the appointment of federal judges and ambassadors and others. We needn't even mention the recent appalling interference by the federal Department of Justice in the sovereign affairs of the State of Utah!

Finally, there is a very simple - but nonetheless quite meaningful and profound - argument against LaSalvia's self-asserted credibility as a "conservative." Redefining marriage is an inherently radical proposition. It creates for government a fictive power utterly unimagined by our Founders, one which would have been completely unseemly to them: the power to redefine the laws of Nature itself. The Founders would never have ventured to be so bold - and a good thing, too, or else in place of the great nation they built they'd have constructed instead a doomed modern Tower of Babel.

LaSalvia says he is "every bit as conservative as he's always been," and we must give benefit of the doubt to the strict meaning of those words. But all that suggests is that LaSalvia was never much of a conservative to begin with, because he certainly isn't embracing conservative positions now.