Cory Booker claims Mike Pompeo can’t love homosexuals and therefore is unfit to lead.
Of course, not fearing the law of noncontradiction, at the same time Cory Booker claims Mike Pompeo hates homosexuals he also accuses him of hating devout Muslims.
Cory Booker is following a script designed to turn the traditional Christian belief that homosexual behavior is immoral into an act of aggression that deserves reprisals. The Constitution forbids religious tests for office but Booker is pretending that the pansexual faith is above the law.
But his argument against Mike Pompeo is flawed.
John Bowling writes at The Federalist: “Yes, Cory Booker, Mike Pompeo Can Love Gay People Without Affirming Their Sexuality.”
In a Facebook post explaining why he wouldn’t vote to confirm Mike Pompeo for secretary of state, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker cited Pompeo’s past reference to same-sex relationships as perverted, saying he shouldn’t be confirmed because “you can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people.”
Booker’s not wrong about love and leadership. To love someone is to seek what is in their best interest. If one isn’t capable or willing to seek that which is in the best interests of the people, then they aren’t fit to lead or represent the nation. But the assumption implicit in Booker’s claim that if you believe homosexuality is a perversion then you can’t love gay people is false.[…]
Christians, such as Pompeo, have always believed that the most important feature of human identity is found in the image of God. This has traditionally been cashed out in terms of humans being rational, moral, and sovereign creatures (Genesis 1:26ff focuses on dominion). These are concrete targets for our love to cling to despite deep disagreements about other parts of our identity. Furthermore, these foundational goods lay the groundwork for allowing people to choose lifestyles and identities that we disagree with. […]
It is wrong, therefore, to think that the central role our sexuality plays in our identity would prevent someone like Pompeo from “loving the people.”
Another potential objection might arise from how I defined love above: to love someone is to seek what is in their best interest. But a homosexual and someone who believes that homosexuality is a perversion will obviously disagree about what is in that person’s best interest. True.
This provides us good reasons to think that Pompeo would not be an appropriate candidate for leadership in an organization like GLAAD.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com