Posted on 03/17/2004 4:28:10 AM PST by JesseHousman
I've always assumed that President Bush is surrounded by political advisers of the first order. With a campaign chest in excess of $140 million, he can afford the most skilled. But just this once, they may have failed him.
For deep-dyed Republicans, the log cabin has always been a near-sacred symbol, reminding us as it does of their party's first president, the immortal Abraham Lincoln.
Not all Republicans could have been happy, years ago, when gay and lesbian members – as statistically plentiful within GOP ranks as at any other level of humankind – formed their own unit within the party. They chose to call themselves "Log Cabin Republicans." And, as if to demonstrate that homosexuals can be as ideologically diverse as anyone else, these gays have claimed to be a growing element within the party. Yet in light of the abuse they often have suffered amid selectively compassionate conservatives, we must wonder why they would choose to join hands with their oppressors.
The latest putdown may be the unkindest cut of all: a president's proposal that the Constitution (with the arguable exception of Prohibition, heretofore amended only to limit government intrusion on citizen rights) be altered to bar same-sex marriage.
One needn't endorse the full range of societal change that some fellow Americans have in mind to wonder what motivated George Bush to take this highly divisive step. He may indeed feel the religious impulses that lie behind much of the recent gay-marriage resentment. But amid a multitude of serious issues dividing Americans today – our sick economy, the inequities that deny health care to increasing numbers of us, and momentous events bearing on war or peace – must we give equal attention to the legal impact of homosexual partnerships?
For a president bent on re-election, his proposal to tinker with the Constitution may have triggered a backlash of epic proportion. Democrats, of course, had been ready to heap scorn on almost anything George Bush chooses to make a campaign issue. But the political damage this time occurs mainly within his own ranks. Only days after the president had spoken, Log Cabin Republicans were at the battlements. Partisan loyalties aside, they seem determined to persuade moderates and independents that the White House is playing crude politics with the Constitution – as well as with their personal lives.
Just who are these pariahs? Newsweek has defined Log Cabin membership as predominantly white, affluent and fiscally conservative – reliable GOP material, sure enough. And because they accept party doctrine on almost everything, they'd normally hate seeing a sizable ideological vote conceded to the Democrats.
They've assembled some telling numbers, too. Voter registration at gay pride events is said to have found 38 to 40 percent signing up as Republicans. Of an estimated 1.2 million gay or lesbian voting-age Californians, Log Cabin officers think as many as 350,000 have voted Republican for president.
Moreover, not many politicians are loath to ask for money. And I'd expect to find most of these folk in the upper echelons of economic worth. Bush could therefore be turning his back on a veritable mother lode of campaign cash for himself and other deserving candidates.
Thus my questions of the moment. Why the call for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage? His "religious base" and all else aside, how does it help to turn off untold thousands of gay Republicans, while doubtless disappointing some of his closest political adherents who are known to have blood ties to homosexuals?
From Newt Gingrich to Vice President Dick Cheney and on to the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, some highly important Republican leaders have adjusted to – and accepted – the reality of openly gay members within the immediate family. They will remain loyal but not, we must suppose, without hurt.
A significant number of GOP leaders has shown greater sensitivity than the president on this score. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unhesitantly voiced disapproval of the proposed amendment, as have Arizona Sen. John McCain and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Congressional leaders insist there is no chance of mustering the two-thirds votes needed for a constitutional amendment in the present session.
So are the skeptics right? Is it not reform but only a wedge issue that Bush is looking for, hoping to embarrass liberals?
If so, some of those Log Cabin folk will begin to wonder. Can they ever find acceptance and understanding in the party of Lincoln?
Van Deerlin represented a San Diego County district in Congress for 18 years.
Much better they haul their stained logs out of the GOP and haul them over to the DemocRAT Party which is, after all, the Homosexual Party. They do absolutely no good acting as Republicans. Besides, there are too many RINOs in the Republican Party as it is.
I find that very hard to believe. I do not know that it is false, but it strikes me as a totally made-up statistic.
Moreover, not many politicians are loath to ask for money. And I'd expect to find most of these folk in the upper echelons of economic worth.
Simply a stereotype. About half of the homosexuals are lesbians. Lesbians are typically below average in income, for a variety of reasons. Right there, it makes it hard for "most of these folks" to be well off. In addition, a good percentage of the male homosexuals are very young men. How many "upper echelon" people do you know who are 18-24?
I grant the fact that there are a lot of rich 50-ish homosexuals who give generously to political causes that promote their agenda. But it is false, IMO, to say that "most" homosexuals are rich. Don't buy their lies -- it just it easier for them to snow you.
Given that the margin of the Bush win in Florida in 2000 was almost certainly smaller than the total number of homosexuals in Florida who voted for him, your "my way or the highway" attitude would have given Gore the presidential win.
What a brilliant strategy you've got there.
They do absolutely no good acting as Republicans.
I submit that by voting Republican, they do a lot more good than folks such as yourself who want to kick out of the tent any Republicans who aren't "pure" enough for your tastes.
Who died and made you mullah? Do we really want to lose people like Andrew Sullivan to the Democrats?
It's either them or we lose all the decent people that make up the Republican base.
Support the Log Samplin' Republicans --- Drink the Kool-Aid!
Well, maybe they've accepted it and adjusted to it, but two of those three (Cheney being the exception) still treat their gay family members like an embarassment and it's done nothing to temper their anti-gay rhetoric.
Can I suggest you do a little reading up on current events before you post again and embarass yourself even further.
And let's consider all the wonderful contributions made by homosexuals and then, after the examination, let's promote a Homosexual History Month!
Normal America needs to stay as far away from the homosexuals and their agenda the target of which is American children. After all, it is "for the children" that these slogging perverts work overtime trying to legitimize their unusual and sickening methods of achieving their pitiful orgasms.
Whether one wants to face up to it or not this agenda by this evil and degenerate segment of our population is as dangerous to the future of America as are suicidal islamists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.