Amidst the wave of sexual harassment allegations from Hollywood to Alabama to the Colorado State Capitol, and as an evangelical Republican who condemns sexual harassment and sexual immorality, I will hereby argue why my friend Rep. Steve Lebsock should immediately switch from Democrat to Republican.  Lebsock and I served together as state representatives, often dueling in friendly opposition on the local government committee.  He’s a moderate Democrat and I’m a conservative Republican, so we rarely agree, but to Lebsock’s credit he scores highly on the Principles of Liberty scorecard.  Lebsock is a pro-gun, smaller-government, pro-liberty Democrat, which surprises some, but not me.  He votes 71 percent of the time with Republicans, not Democrats, on bills concerning individual liberty and property rights, and 31 percent with conservatives overall.  It wouldn’t be a big stretch for Lebsock to caucus with Republicans.

But imagine everyone’s shock and sadness when hearing Lebsock’s fellow Democrat, Rep Faith Winter, accused him of once having invited her to engage in sexual immorality. Lebsock denies the allegation; he did publicly state he apologized to Winter “for offending her.” Rep. Winter says she refused Lebsock’s alleged advances, and her faithfulness to her husband is admirable, just as I’ve also cherished faithfulness to my wife of 26 years.  As an evangelical I oppose sexual immorality.  However, this new-fangled Democrat Party opposition to consensual sex outside of wedlock is hardly consistent with the Democrat legislative agenda; in fact, it’s hypocritical.  I’m delighted that House Speaker Crisanta Duran has suddenly become puritanical in her beliefs, yet she’s duplicitous to have removed Lebsock from a committee, or to permit a vote to expel him from the House.

To evaluate intellectual consistency, I observe three possible positions on sexual immorality held by current members of the Colorado legislature:

1)  The Evangelical Republican stance is to oppose both personally immoral behavior and sexually immoral legislation.  If I believed the allegations against my decade-long friend from Alabama Roy Moore, I would condemn his behavior, but he denies all allegations of sexual impropriety, and I believe him.  Since he and I oppose both immoral behavior and immoral legislation we remain intellectually consistent.

2)  The Libertarian Republican stance is to allow both personally immoral behavior and sexually immoral legislation, as long as it harms no one else.  A number of pro-gay Republicans believe the government should stay out of peoples’ bedrooms, and while I may personally disagree with both Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court has ruled against government infringements on sexual privacy and equality in some cases.

3)  The Democrat stance, almost universally now, is to promote and even celebrate sexually immoral legislation, but to hypocritically condemn personal immoral behavior.  How might Speaker Cristanta Duran reconcile her Roman Catholic heritage with her open advocacy for transgender co-ed bathrooms?  She can do so because, as a Democrat, her party platform re-labels what some call immorality as diversity, while ironically opposing Lebsock’s alleged, indecent proposal.

Lebsock reportedly did not intimidate or harass in the workplace, he committed no crimes, solicited no bribes, traded no legislative favors, and is not accused of blackmail; in fact he may have been blackmailed himself.  According to Winter’s allegation, he simply went to a bar and invited her to share an evening, and she declined.  That may be immoral and offensive, but is it grounds for expulsion?  Some Evangelical Republicans like me could say yes, for it’s intellectually consistent that we oppose adultery.  But I don’t condemn.  Libertarian Republicans could say no, for it’s intellectually consistent for them to favor privacy between voluntary consenting adults.  But now Democrats face a choice, and can’t have it both ways.  They can’t promote sexually immoral legislation with their votes at the state-house, while at the same time calling for government invasion of consenting adults’ bedrooms.  That’s intellectually inconsistent.

Democrats should join me to condemn real workplace harassment (which reportedly didn’t happen here), but if they now suddenly try to expel an elected representative for the first time in Colorado since 1915 over what, if true, amounted to nothing more than his privately unsuccessful dating habits, it’s self-contradictory for them to punish that which they often claim should be legalized.  Make up your minds already.

If the allegations against my friend Steve Lebsock were to prove to be true, it might be too much to hope he would quickly become a celibate Christian – yet it’s far more intellectually consistent for him to at least convert to libertarian Republican.  But first it’s your move, Crisanta.  Let her who does not legislate sin, cast the first stone.