Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Richard Grenell, the guy who was the national security spokesman for the Romney campaign for two weeks - but who never spoke on behalf of the campaign even as national security has taken center stage in the campaign - has called it quits. To be fair, he was a national security adviser for George W. Bush. And an underling of John Bolton's. In other words, he was part of national security policies that were utter, spectacular failures. So it might have been that he resigned because he's utterly unqualified for the job for which he was hired.

But that is not the reason he quit. He was hounded out of the campaign for being openly gay. The Romney campaign apparently wanted to keep him on (even if they wouldn't actually let him say anything). But as far as the Republican base is concerned, teh homoshec-suals cannot represent their presidential campaign on anything.

There are a lot of people feeling sorry for Grenell right about now. Aww, poor him, he was a victim of the rabid right, etc. etc. Give me a break.

The guy made his own bed, knowing exactly where his party was headed. He worked for George W. Bush, the president who made a federal Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage a campaign issue, and who was re-elected partly because of voters brought out in 2004 to vote for state initiatives to enshrine discrimination in state constitutions. Before having to resign under wingnut pressure, he signed up to be the national security spokesperson for a candidate who has vowed take away the right of gay soldiers to openly and proudly serve the country they love - which, incidentally is not just bigoted but also harms our national security interests (anyone remember Arabic linguists being fired from the military just because they are gay in the aftermath of 9/11?).

The Republican party - and its presidents and presidential candidates - have pandered to anti-gay conservatives for as long as anyone can remember. Right this moment, House Republicans are blocking the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that it would extend protections against domestic violence and sexual assault to gay people.

We need to rid ourselves of this fake line between a politician or a party's policy approach towards gay people and whether said candidate "personally" discriminates. It doesn't matter one iota if someone is personally a bigot or not so long as they are pursuing or advancing a bigoted agenda. Anyone who is helping that party or candidate advance such agenda doesn't get any passes simply because they happen to be a member of the class that the bigoted policies target. That, as I have said before, is worse. That is betrayal.

Grenell may be gay, but he's chosen to advance his career by associating with and advancing the agenda of the same people and party who've made scapegoats out of gay Americans, denied us basic rights, and even used their anti-gay fervor to hurt the national security interests of the United States. As far as I am concerned, he deserves no sympathy, and he gets none from me. He decided to help out the virulently anti-gay people and party, and now what just happened to him because of right wing pressure serves him right.

Yes, this incident exposes the wingnuts on the right. But it should also serve to expose gay people (and really, any other minority or underprivileged population) who decide to backstab their own communities in order to serve a bigoted agenda. It should serve as a stark reminder of truth: If you want to serve a party that would rather see you hanged because of who you are, you have no one to blame but yourself when you get kicked out.

Like what you read? Chip in, keep us going.

"A dark day for freedom" turns into a black eye for Romney

Elizabeth Warren dismantles Professional Left's "Obama is a sellout" meme