By Marc Paige

When Mitt Romney selected a gay man, Richard Grenell, as his Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman, the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, and LGBT conservatives everywhere hailed this appointment as proof that Romney, in his heart, was a fair man who will do right by the gay community.

But it took only ten days for Grenell to be gone, and Romney’s anti-gay bona fides to be stronger than ever. Grenell’s decision to leave the Romney presidential campaign came after a busy week of foreign policy news. While Grenell was allowed to listen in on a key press call on foreign policy, the New York Times reported that he was neither introduced at the beginning of the call, nor allowed to speak during the conversation.

Apparently, this humiliation was too much for Grenell, appointed to a position where relationships with reporters are vital to success. Grenell’s letter of resignation thanked Romney “for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team,” and placed the blame for his departure on “the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues.

Furious voices on the right came fast to condemn Romney when he initially selected Grenell, the loudest being Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. After Fischer took credit for Grenell’s resignation, his directive to Romney going forward was unequivocal: “I will flat-out guarantee you Romney is not going to make this mistake again. There is no way in the world that Mitt Romney is going to put a homosexual activist in any position of importance in his campaign.” At no point during the Grenell affair did Romney publicly speak out against the ugly voices of bigotry coming from the right. That would have taken conviction and leadership.

In his statement of regret over Grenell’s resignation, Romney’s language contained a dog whistle to the right to reassure them that he remains one of them: “We select people not based upon their ethnicity or their ‘sexual preference’…” (to be read as a choice and changeable), avoiding the accurate “sexual orientation” (derided by the right for its intrinsic and unchangeable connotation). What does all this mean for the November election? LGBT voters are a small constituency, representing perhaps five percent of the voting population.

But a growing number of young heterosexuals see LGBT equality as the civil rights issue of our time. The Grenell debacle has reminded young voters, as well as those with gay loved ones, that a Romney presidency, ruled by the right, will reverse the forward trajectory of LGBT equality in America. After his victory, an emboldened Bryan Fischer told The Nation magazine that candidate Romney must commit to other anti-gay measures, including vetoing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) if it reaches his desk.

During his failed U.S. Senate run in 1994, Romney made a commitment to Massachusetts’ Log Cabin Republicans to co-sponsor ENDA at the federal level. But in 2007 Romney told Tim Russert on “Meet The Press” that he would not support ENDA at the federal level.

When Russert challenged this about face, Romney was unfazed: “Oh, Tim, if you’re looking to someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy.” Now there’s a solid Romney conviction.