The Dish's full coverage of the Grenell controversy here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It's almost poignant to read Dan Blatt's response to the Christianists' successful scalping of an openly gay GOP spokesman:
Grenell’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to his ability to serve as Romney’s foreign policy spokesman. Heck, he’s worked in a similar capacity for other prominent–and respected–conservatives for years. And he didn’t leave his party even as gay groups demonized Republicans. And even when a Republican president came out in support of an amendment which would enshrine the traditional defining of marriage in the federal constitution.
Yes, Grenell was prepared to work for an administration opposed to marriage equality even when he supported it passionately (like, ahem, Dick Cheney). He was prepared to be ostracized by many in his own community for being a Republican, taking brickbats from the gay liberal establishment, and throwing many punches back. His neoconservatism is, so far as I can tell, completely sincere, and he has a huge amount of experience as a spokesman.
It's sometimes hard to explain to outsiders what level of principle is required to withstand the personal cost of being an out gay Republican. I've only ever been a gay conservative (never a Republican), and back in the 1990s, it was brutal living in the gay world and challenging liberal assumptions. I cannot imagine the social isolation of Grenell in Los Angeles today, doing what he did.
And his reward for such loyalty, sincerity and pugnacity? Vilification.
I mean: what do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?