Did VA GOP Reject Thorne-Begland b/c He's Gay, or b/c He's Pro-Gay-Rights?

The VA GOP wants to say that it's because he's pro-gay-rights, but some liberal commentators are acting as if this explanation is absurd. It isn't. Sure, it's usually a mixed bag of anti-gay-rights motives and anti-gay motives...but does anyone think that the GOP would have been just fine with Thorne-Begland if he were straight, but an outspoken advocate for gay rights?

The outcome is probably overdetermined--either being gay or being pro-gay-rights would be likely to garner GOP opposition. At any rate, there's nothing absurd about the GOP's explanation--their record against gay rights and those who support them is well-established. This dust-up reminds me of those who insist on attributing the GOP's hatred of Obama to the fact that he's black...such folks apparently having forgotten the GOP's perhaps even greater hatred for Clinton. Personally, I doubt that their hatred for Obama would lessen much if he were white...but that's nothing more than a very fallible hunch.

Funny thing about all this to me is that the GOP seems to acknowledge that it needs to defend itself from charges of anti-gay bigotry...but to think that "we're not gay, we're just against gay rights" constitutes such a defense. How it's supposed to be impermissible to be anti-gay, but permissible to be against gay rights is beyond me. Seems on the face of it that they'd stand or fall together.