Posted on 02/07/2002 5:22:23 PM PST by 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.
You disagree with Gen. Colin Powell who insists that allowing open homosexuals in the military would irreparably harm it?
I have no idea what you are referring to. Why do people always assume these cynical and mean-spirited motives? I am just engaged in a discussion trying to get at the truth. I don't know you at all and could have no criticism of you anyways. There is nothing gained by the route many take of personal assaults. I don't know why you call it 'straw man'. I was just asking about when you referred to homosexuality as an 'abomination' but called for embracing those people who practice it. Are there any other examples of a community that celebrates and has pride in what you would call an 'abomination' and we should specifically welcome them into the Republican Party? That question is at the crux of the issue because it deals with personal character and integrity.
Well I attended public school a little earlier than that, and they actually taught something then, but that, as you certainly know, has all changed. Well, not exactly, since they do teach, or probably more accurately, propagandize or promote, a social agenda that includes multi-culturalism (whatever anyone does that is different is OK, unless it is different because a person is more intelligent, has more character, or is more ambitious) and the normalization of homosexuality, including encouraging the students to "experiment" with it.
Do you think the US Federal government, any state government, or any municipal government should support these new "educational" agendas?
Hank
Who said that?
The vast majority of Republicans wouldn't call divorce an 'abomination' as RightOnline called homosexuality an 'abomination'.
God calls divorcees adulterers and calls adultery an abomination. You're right, most Republicans do not feel that way.
Divorce is considered normal, if regrettable, by most people in this country. Would you deny party membership to a divorced person? No, of course not. When it comes to party politics, a person's political inclination is more important than their sexual inclination.
So glad to hear you don't allow your children to watch TV, and home school them.
Hank
...how do you shout down someone
over the Internet? I don't even
see anyone talking to you in allcaps.
....and banning any further discussion.
...That would be up to the forum owner,
and you're still here, aren't you?
Then I asked for a similar abomination and you said 'divorce'. But I don't think most people hold that view. Most view their own divorce as a tragedy or something bad. Not something to have a pride parade about. Plus I have never heard of anyone say that having divorces is normal, healthy, and a gift from God. If you don't think of homosexuality as an 'abomination' like RightOnline, then it would be hard to answer the question. He/she made the comment and so that was why I was asking about other similar 'abominations', or communities of people who celebrated something like that with pride and viewed it as healthy and normal and a blessing. So far no one has been able to come up with an example.
The 1-3% numbers will not grow or change. I'd say PC pandering was going on here, but to what end?
I've read many intolerant posts by someone with your same name bashing pro-family posters.
There are countless examples of the government "tolerating" behavior it doesn't condone. There are countless other examples of the government not tolerating behavior that is deemed unhealthy, whether for the individual or society at large. I am not advocating laws for everything under the sun, but I do think the government is not wrong to support and encourage heterosexual marriage and NOT homosexual marriage. Look to San Francisco as an example. They have huge problems with STD's and AIDS. The government should not encourage behavior that is unhealthy.
Gay marriage will lead to gay adoption. Where are the studies proving this is good for kids? We should not perform social experiements on children. I am in favor of gays raising all children that have been produced from a gay union. The fact is, whether you blame God or natural selection, gays unions do not produce the future generations, they have nothing to do with the survival of our species and are therefore less important even if you discount the health danger they expose us to.
Name calling has no place in polite society. We are free to make bad choices (most) in this country. But, we don't have to put our heads in the sand and pretend that all behavior is equal because it isn't.
When you have two men acting like two women but relating to each other like members of the opposite sex, don't you think it is logical to ask "is there perhaps a problem with this behavior?"
Of course not! I never said anything of the sort for either homosexuals or divorced people. Why are you making that stuff up? RightOnline said we should welcome people who celebrate and 'abomination' as comrades-in-arms. There is no analogy with divorced people unless you can cite an example of a community of divorced people who cherish and celibrate it as a lifestyle they see as a gift from God. I would deny no one party membership. I was just questioning whether we should pander to them or condone the behavior they celebrate.
So your problem is with parades? If divorced people had pride parades you would shun them, and if gay people didn't have parades you would welcome them?
It's a good thing you don't
run the RNC, because that's
exactly what 'we' do to
libertarians in the form
of the Liberty Caucus.
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.