Homophobia, Mark Nuemann and the Republican Party. Should there be Gay Discriminated for Jobs? Yes!

Here in Wisconsin, former congressman and now gubernatorial candidate Mark Nuemann has garnered the important Senatorial endorsement of Tom Coburn. Two peas in a pod according Neumann’s campaign. But in an article by Milwaukee Journal Sentinal reporter Dan Bice, that similarity might not be saying much.

Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, once said gay people represented a greater threat to America than terrorism. "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power," Coburn said in 2004, according to Salon. "That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

Wow, not only is that enough to take your breath away, it’s also something your campaign would immediately distance itself from with a press release. But that didn’t happen. Is it possible to believe such fiction and gay fear mongering? Mark Neumann does!

While still a member of Congress, he told The New York Times: "If I was elected God for a day, homosexuality wouldn't be permitted, but nobody's electing me God."

In an address to the Christian Coalition as he geared up to challenge U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, Neumann also suggested that he would not hire an openly gay staffer. "If somebody walks in to me and says, 'I'm a gay person, I want a job in your office,' I would say that's inappropriate, and they wouldn't be hired because that would mean they are promoting their agenda," he said in 1997, according to the Journal Sentinel and other media outlets.

It’s interesting to note some commenter's criticized Bice for focusing on the gay issue, instead of the more important pursuit of creating jobs and cutting taxes.

But do you think for one minute Republicans won’t resurrect every wedge issue imaginable and then some, like legislation prohibiting lawmakers from voting on bills after 10 p.m. and before 9 a.m. and a constitutional amendment to ban preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, and national origin?

Can we even afford considering the last two pieces of legislative incoherence in these tough times?