Bush Aide Karl Rove Gets Briefings on ‘Gay’ GOP Effort

Culture and Family Institute ^ | February 7, 2002 | Peter LaBarbera

[Double Eagle Sword of Justice]

Charles Francis, a homosexual activist and friend of President George W. Bush, regularly briefs Bush senior advisor Karl Rove on his group’s effort to end the GOP’s opposition to homosexuality, according to a National Journal report.

Francis heads the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC), a year-old organization that seeks to make homosexuality a “non-issue” in the Republican Party. The RUC has the backing of several prominent Republicans and Bush backers — including senior White House aide Mary Matalin, who is pictured prominently on the group’s Web site attending a 2000 fund-raiser for the Coalition. Former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson (Wyoming) has taken a public role as the RUC’s honorary chairman, chastising Republicans who oppose homosexual behavior.

The January 12 Journal article by Shawn Zeller reports that Francis — a longtime Texas friend of Bush — and the RUC have adopted a “less confrontational” approach than the Log Cabin Republicans, another homosexual activist group, by not taking formal positions on pro-homosexual legislation such as the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

“All [Francis] seeks to change, he says, is the GOP’s tone. His method is simple and overtly political — raise enough funds for the party, and the party will bow to your wishes,” the Journal reports.

It continues: “Francis has received tacit approval for his effort from the White House, and he keeps Bush senior adviser Karl Rove briefed on his group’s plans.”

The six-page Journal article — essentially inside baseball on left-right schisms in the “gay” activist movement — reveals the political tightrope that Rove is walking as he simultaneously seeks to accommodate “gay” advocates like Francis and pro-family grassroots conservatives who object to homosexual activism.

Rove is on record welcoming “gay” support for the Republican Party, but also acknowledges that evangelical Christians and pro-family voters vastly outnumber homosexual voters within the party. Last month at the American Enterprise Institute, Rove warned that only 15 million evangelical Christians voted in the 2000 election, or 4 million fewer than should have turned out. He indicated that this was a result of not adequately exciting the GOP’s religious conservative base.

Rove meets and talks regularly with pro-family and conservative leaders, some of whom have voiced concerns about “gay”-affirming moves by the Bush administration, C&F Report has learned.

BAUER NOTES THREAT OF ‘UNITY’ COALITION
Meanwhile, former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer is warning pro-family Americans about the Republican Unity Coalition’s latest gambit to influence elections this fall. In his “End of Day” e-mail message sent out Wednesday, Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, a political action committee, said the RUC “is trying to find 1,000 homosexual Republicans who will donate $5,000 each to a political action committee [RUC PAC]. That $5 million will then be used to help elect so-called ‘tolerant’ Republicans and to defeat pro-family, pro-life conservatives. I believe they have a good chance of meeting their goal.”

Noting that “money talks,” Bauer writes, “If our opponents raise $5 million — or even $2 to $3 million — in the next few months, they will have an unbelievable impact on the balance of power within the Republican Party. Pro-family candidates will be intimidated.”

Noting that the leading homosexual lobby group, Human Rights Campaign, has raised upwards of $18 million in contributions for Democrat candidates, RUC’s web site states:

The RUC is dedicated to building a Political Action Committee that begins to approach the political maturity of what gay Democrats have accomplished in past years. The goal is to raise $1 million for RUC PAC by September 2002. We will raise this from individuals in contributions of $500 or more. [emphasis theirs]

Bauer said if the RUC succeeds in making the GOP go neutral or worse, “gay friendly,” it “would be a political disaster,” and pledged a counter effort by his PAC to elect pro-family and pro-life candidates in the Republican Party.

RIORDAN TESTS ‘GAY’ WATERS
On the opposite side of the GOP spectrum, Richard Riordan is burnishing his pro-homosexual credentials as the leading contender for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in California. Riordan, former mayor of Los Angeles, said through a spokesman that he was “open to discussion” of a Vermont-type homosexual “civil unions” bill that was recently stalled due to a concerted pro-family campaign against it.

The homosexual press reports that Riordan met last month with the California group Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality. His spokesman, Matt Szabo, characterized an exchange between Riordan and the group as follows:

The question was, would you support [homosexual] civil unions … and his answer was that he would be open to a discussion but he wasn’t familiar with all of the legal aspects.

Riordan has worked closely with Republican homosexual activists and opposed Proposition 22, the statewide initiative that defined marriage as between a man and woman in California. Prop 22 was approved in March 2000 with the support of over 61 percent of the state’s voters.

[RAT Patrol]

Sinkspur, it always amazes me how you defend immoral people yet have zero tolerance for those who want our government to stand up for morality. I'm not talking about discrimation, I'm talking about endorsing. Why must you force me to approve? We aren't talking about tolerance, we're talking about conformity and I'm not willing to say it's okay. Homosexuality is bad for any society. It spreads disease. It hurts families. It is about self gratification and, while it may be legal, it should not be encouranged. They can keep their money and joint the Democrats. I support being kind and respectful but I do not support government funding of benefits and marriage which ultimately will lead to adoption. Why must they corrupt our children?

[Double Eagle Sword of Justice]

Here we go again. Honestly, why can't anyone discuss this subject without going completely nuts? I've never said anything derogatory. I just found the article thought provoking. Yet certain rabidly pro-homosexual posters have to start really offensive stuff and getting personal so the whole discussion will bet banned. Why do they always resort to this strategy to shout down anyone who dares question their lifstyle?

[RAT Patrol]

RightOnline, I just can't go as far as you do with it. I am fine if we just don't have to hear about it. I don't talk about my sex life. I just am not fine with their agenda which will eventually lead to adopting children. I will never bend on this issue. I am not for calling names or being mean. I have never been in favor of that. But I will not yield to saying "this is okay" or "go ahead and teach my kid it's okay" or, "go ahead and label and marginalize christians and christian groups like the boy scouts in your immoral quest.." It just ain't gonna happen.

[dighton]

If you support the gay agenda, then that's your right.

Maybe your hearing isn't too good, so I'll say it again. (Remember the last time? You had a different name then).

I DON'T support any "gay agenda," DON'T want homosexuality shoved in my face, DON'T lose sleep about what adult homos do with each other in private, and am heartily SICK of the whole damned topic.

[Double Eagle Sword of Justice]

Why can't anyone answer the question RightOnline brought up with his comments? It seems to be the crux of the issue. He said homosexuality was an 'abomination' but we should welcome those who practice it as brothers in arms. I'm sincerely asking what other lifestyle would be considered an 'abomination', yet its practitioners celebrated it with parades of pride - and we should welcome those people as commrades in arms. Why can't anyone answer that simple question. Surely homosexuality isn't the only abomination that is seen as a 'blessing' and a 'gift' by some to be cherished with pride.

[Double Eagle Sword of Justice]

and am heartily SICK of the whole damned topic.

This is what I honestly don't understand. If you feel this way, then what attracts you to a discussion of the topic as though a magnet pulled you in against your will?

[sinkspur]

Sinkspur, it always amazes me how you defend immoral people yet have zero tolerance for those who want our government to stand up for morality.

You have me mixed up with someone else.

I don't want gays to be treated any differently than you are treated.

And I want the government to protect the rights of ALL Americans, not just those who consider themselves "moral people."

Why must they corrupt our children?

Are they corrupting yours?

They're not corrupting mine.

[Russell Scott]

This is a no-brainer. If the Republican Party starts embracing the homosexual agenda, George Bush will destroy any chance he has to become a great President. This is nothing but a Trojan Horse by the godless left to undermine and destroy the foundation of the Republican party, the religious conservatives. And once you destroy the foundation, the whole house collapses. Carl Rove, WAKE UP!!!

[freepersup]

Whenever I hear of another church or city council embracing homosexuality I wonder where the apologists for beastiality and incest are ?

[dighton]

... then what attracts you to a discussion of the topic ...?

The spectacle of your endless bannings and reincarnations. At this rate you'll beat Eschoir's record.

[Enlightiator]

Here we go again. Honestly, why can't anyone discuss this subject without going completely nuts? I've never said anything derogatory. I just found the article thought provoking.

You mean because of posts that *demand* in so many words that you *explain* your reasons for posting the article? Or because of the very personal attacks on you for posting it? No suprise here, since its the same tired liberal technique of lie, distort, and attack the "enemy."

A social liberal is still a liberal I guess, whether under the old liberal Democrat label of the "new and improved Republican Lincoln Log funboy" label...so personal attacks are not a big suprise.

[RightOnline]

I don't play the "straw man" game. Try it with the kids or amateurs on this site.

[upchuck]

[Charles] Francis heads the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC), a year-old organization that seeks to make homosexuality a “non-issue” in the Republican Party.

Good ole Charlie must have seen this:
From The Overhauling of Straight America: "We do not need and cannot expect a full “appreciation” or “understanding” of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

Yeppers, that's exactly what he's trying to do. OK, all together now... shrug your shoulders.

[RightOnline]

"Just curious. Do you believe in government controlled education? Do (or did) your children attend "public" school? Do you know what is being taught about homosexuality in public school, and what agency is funding that education? "

I attended public school..............in the dark ages (I'm in my mid-40's).

We've homeschooled our kids for the last 18 years........LONG before it was fashionable. We homeschool them up until high school, but we live in the South in a prosperous area with a very tough, college-prep high school. Yes, I know what is taught or not taught.......more than you know. Where we live? Enough liberalism to get me into the principal's face more than once; homosexual promotion? No.

Anything else you want to know?

[Looking for Diogenes]

Can you give any similar examples?

Divorced people. Heck, one of our greatest presidents was a divorcee. But I suppose you would have preferred that Reagan was banned from the Republican Party.

[RightOnline]

"RightOnline, I just can't go as far as you do with it. I am fine if we just don't have to hear about it. I don't talk about my sex life. I just am not fine with their agenda which will eventually lead to adopting children. I will never bend on this issue. I am not for calling names or being mean. I have never been in favor of that. But I will not yield to saying "this is okay" or "go ahead and teach my kid it's okay" or, "go ahead and label and marginalize christians and christian groups like the boy scouts in your immoral quest.." It just ain't gonna happen. "

.........and you never read in this thread or anywhere else on FR where I suggested otherwise.

I'm an AF Academy grad, former SAC aircraft commander in the Cold War days, evangelical Christian, dad of seven.........married to the same woman for just a hair under 24 years. I'm as Conservative as they come.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I know how to make allies to achieve a goal. My ally's sexuality doesn't matter when we're fighting for regaining our Constitutional rights. This isn't a discussion of the "homosexual agenda", education, sexual lifestyles, or anything of the sort.

It's about war.........a war for the reclamation of our Constitution. You want to fight with me? Let's go. Who or what you sleep with, what you eat, what tree you hug, what gun you shoot, what music you listen to, what you smoke.............................doesn't matter to me. Those are left to other venues, other battles.

[RightOnline]

Just noticed that you tried to bait me on yet another reply. Don't even think about it, rookie. You're out of your league.

[Double Eagle Sword of Justice]

I don't approve of divorce in the slightest. I find it an aberration and an abomination before God.

That seems to be pretty disingenuous. Do you really feel that way? I would call that very much on the fringe or the extreme. The vast majority of Republicans wouldn't call divorce an 'abomination' as RightOnline called homosexuality an 'abomination'.

Also, your analogy falls flat because where is there a community of people who say that divorce is healthy and normal and it should be celebrated with pride? And if you find such a community, I ask you again - should we be embracing them as "comrades in arms"?

[RightOnline]

Keep reading, ace. You're treading on thin ice. If you have something to say to me, say it to ME. This time, be clear..............I guarantee you'll get the same in return.