Posted on 09/11/2006 9:49:48 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
BRAINERD, Minn. - State Sen. Paul Koering once fit neatly into the profile of socially conservative central Minnesota: abortion opponent, supporter of gun and property rights, outspoken supporter of veterans.
But last year, Koering was the only Republican in the Senate to join Democrats in opposing an effort to force a floor vote on a constitutional gay marriage ban.
That stirred up long-standing rumors at the Capitol about Koering's own sexuality, and within a few days he revealed that he was gay — a move the area's GOP chairman called "political suicide."
In Tuesday's primary, he will find out if that is true.
"There's going to be a lot of people watching to see if the voters can look at my record and say, 'He's doing a good job,'" said the 41-year-old Koering. "Or, will they look at my personal life and say, 'I can't support him because of that.' If that's how they're going to vote, I may be out of a job."
Kevin Goedker, a city councilman who's challenging Koering in Tuesday's GOP primary, says it isn't because his opponent is gay. But he's making an explicit appeal to voters whose values guide them in the voting booth.
"People of high moral values and integrity must rally and support candidates who will work to bring ethics, morals and family values back into government," Goedker's father, Gene, his campaign treasurer, wrote in a fundraising letter.
Patrick Sammon, executive vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, said it's important to the future of the Republican Party that politicians like Koering can find support.
"If the Republicans want to be a lasting majority party in America, they can't just shut out gays and lesbians," Sammon said.
The Victory Fund, which raises campaign funds for gay candidates, said there are currently 325 openly gay elected officials in the country, out of about 511,000 elected offices. The group doesn't break that figure down by party, but "the vast majority of them are Democrats," spokesman Denis Dison said.
"We are seeing more instances of openly gay Republicans, but there are still going to be significant parts of the country where that's going to be difficult to pull off," Dison said.
Like Koering, most prominent gay Republicans came out only after they were in office, including U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona and former U.S. Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin.
It doesn't help that a significant portion of the Republican base is dead-set against legal recognition of gay relationships, the leading front in recent years in the battle for gay rights. More than any other issues, those opposed to Koering's re-election cite his decision to break from the party line on gay marriage.
Indeed, since that 2005 vote, he has changed course, siding with fellow Senate Republicans in more recent efforts to get a statewide vote on the definition of marriage. Koering said it's what the majority of his constituents want, though he won't say how he'd cast his own ballot if it ever comes to a statewide vote.
Koering is not without his supporters among local Republicans, and in April he won the party's endorsement after seven rounds of balloting. Goedker decided to run in the primary anyway.
The winner will face Democrat Terry Sluss, a county commissioner, in the November election.
Goedker said he wouldn't vote for Koering in the general election.
"In my opinion I think it'd be tough to be gay and to be somebody I'd vote for based on some of the life choices they make," Goedker said. "To me it's a more liberal point of view."
Rudy's base ping!
If a gay Republican politician wants lower taxes, is tough on the War on Terror and is for securing our borders, who cares what they do in their bedroom.
Boy, the old state sure has changed since I left or are folks just more out there these days?
It'll be interesting to see who wins.
I don't see how the republican party allow their name to be used as part of an identifier for a sexual inuendo.
Choices have consequences.
He CHOSE not to support the marriage amendment, that has consequests regardless of his hedonistic lifestyle.
I disagree with the behavior, but I will overlook it if it stays in their bedroom. When they drag it out of the closet, put it in Macy's window on Main Street and demand that I "accept" it under penalty of bowbeating, then I have a problem with it. Keep it in your pocket, Paul.
Just like prostitution and drugs, victimless activities, eh?
Not to mention it is immoral and against God's will to advocate, tacitly or not, the sodomite lifestyle.
'homosexual republicans' are as repugnant as 'prostitute republicans' - 'pedophile republicans' - 'slut republicans' - 'sexual acrobat republicans' - "heterosexual republicans' - 'rockefeller republicans'
blaring out and emphasizing what your particular deviancies or sexual pleasures are has NOTHING to do with politics or the country.
I hope the Republican electorate there isn't too slow to throw out a good conservative because he's gay.
You left out 'sinner' republicans
If he is "abortion opponent, supporter of gun and property rights, outspoken supporter of veterans" he is pretty good. After all, many heterosexuals are pro-abortion. Aborting their own children is not so common among gays!
I would support this fellow. It reminds me of Bill Thom, the first acknowledged gay judge in New York City, appointed by Mayor Koch. That was a controversial appointment, and I had mixed feelings about it, because someone should not be appointed just because they belong to a particular group. Nonetheless, I had know Bill Thom. I wonder if the gay activists knew what they were getting when he was appointed! He was one of the most solid conservatives I have ever known, and was a big influence on me when we were in college (at which time I knew nothing of his "sexual orientation," as they call it).
People are seldom exactly as perfect as we might like, and when someone seems perfect, better watch out. Homosexuality is, in my opinion, a disorder. But so is liberalism. Which is more dangerous? Given that most homosexuals mind their own business and leave me alone, and liberals don't leave us alone and are a threat to the whole country, I will prefer to elect a "gay" conservative over any sort of liberal.
I usually look at voting record if they have one first, positions on a wide range of issues and how they relate to the public are important too. We'll see how they do.
If a gay Republican politician wants lower taxes, is tough on the War on Terror and is for securing our borders, who cares what they do in their bedroom.
Not me.
Never understood the need some have for all Republicans to think alike on every issue - it's just another form of PC nonsense.
If he votes the right way 90% of the time, is he still our enemy?
"I disagree with the behavior, but I will overlook it if it stays in their bedroom. When they drag it out of the closet, put it in Macy's window on Main Street and demand that I "accept" it under penalty of bowbeating, then I have a problem with it. Keep it in your pocket, Paul"
Koering kept it private but was "outed" by opponents.
"Given that most homosexuals mind their own business and leave me alone"
You haven't been to California yet, have you?
Check out the list of gay rights "special interest" bills that are up this year in our state legislature, particularly those relating to public schools and the education of other peoples children.
Read about what has happened in Sweden and Canada, were speaking out against homosexuality is now hate speech.
They have absolutely no intention of leaving you alone.
He's not our enemy. But if his opponent votes with us 95% of the time, we should give him that opportunity
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.