Once again so-called “moderate” Republicans are doing everything they can to coerce platform Republicans who care about those pesky immoderate issues like marriage, family, protecting the lives of the unborn, religious liberty, speech rights, and parental rights.

“Moderate” Republicans in cahoots with Democrats of all stripes mock, threaten, harass, harangue, and condescendingly scold those who think the “social” issues are at least as important as the economy and national defense.

Republican State Treasurer Dan Rutherford ominously warns that “If we allow abortion to define a good Republican from a bad Republican, we will be the party of the perpetual minority…  If we allow positions in regard to gay rights and in regards to guns to define good from bad, we will be the party of the perpetual minority.”

So, conservatives are supposed to take their marching orders from someone who doesn’t care about the inherent existential rights of the unborn; who doesn’t understand the relationship of marriage to the health of society; and who doesn’t care about the corruption of public education or the diminution of speech and religious liberty by homosexual activism?

What does Rutherford mean when he says that Republicans ought not allow abortion and “gay rights” to distinguish a good Republican from a bad Republican? Using clever rhetoric that plays on society’s increasing resistance to identifying things as good or bad, he conceals the real point:  The real argument he’s making is that the Republican Party should abandon its historic positions on issues related to abortion and homosexuality — positions that are both right and good.

And remember, this is the same man who in December 2010 said the following on the Illinois Senate floor:

For 2005, we had the Human Rights Act. And at that time, it was opposed by a lot of people…I voted for that bill because in my heart I truly believed it was the right thing to do and now we have this [Civil Union bill] before us today. This past year, as you all know I’ve been all over Illinois…and this legislation today it is opposed by some and it’s uncomfortable for some, but the one thing that I do know about the people of Illinois is that they want fairness. The people of Illinois, they don’t want discrimination. There’s gonna be much said about this legislation, I understand that. But one thing that I do know it’s the right thing to do. I will be voting yes on Senate Bill 1716. (emphasis added)

While in the Illinois Senate, Rutherford worked like the devil to push his “social issue” views, particularly on homosexuality, which he says was the “right thing to do.”  Logically, if legalizing civil unions is the right thing to do, wouldn’t opposition to legalizing civil unions be the wrong thing? And surely a good Republican ought not do the wrong thing. Therefore, isn’t Rutherford implying that being a good Republican means taking his position on the social issue of civil unions?

While out of one side of his mouth he claims that we shouldn’t allow “gay rights” to determine what a good Republican is, out of the other side he suggests incoherently that being a good Republican means holding Democratic views on issues related to homosexuality.

Clearly, Rutherford isn’t suggesting, like Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels did, that Republicans should call a truce on the social issues. Oh no, he’s going further. He’s calling for the Republican Party to adopt liberal positions on issues on which he holds liberal views.

I’ve never heard Democrats tell their party members to call a truce on the social issues, and I’ve never heard Democrats call for Democrats to jettison Democratic positions on the social issues. Perhaps Rutherford should switch parties and work to persuade Democrats to widen their tent to include fiscal and defense hawks. Perhaps he could suggest that they stop allowing fiscal and defense issues to distinguish good Democrats from bad Democrats.

Or here’s another proposal for Rutherford and his ilk:

How about you “moderate” Republicans who don’t see the importance and implications of the “social issues” just remain silent on them.  Limit your rhetoric and frenetic activity to the issues about which you care deeply. Let those with eyes to see tend to the social issues.

Stop trying to censor those who see that abortion, civil unions, “same-sex marriage,” same-sex adoption, hate crime laws, specious anti-bullying laws, ENDA, and comprehensive sex ed are slowly, incrementally, and profoundly damaging this great country and the principles upon which it was founded.

Stop pretending you’re trying to widen the tent when in reality you’re trying to shrink it.

Stop trying to define a good Republican as one who refuses to take positions on the “social” issues.