GOP Courting Homosexual Vote -- A 'Recipe for Disaster'

AgapePress ^ | April 21, 2003 | Bill Fancher and Jody Brown

[Polycarp]

GOP Courting Homosexual Vote -- A 'Recipe for Disaster'

By Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
April 21, 2003

(AgapePress) - When Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot met with homosexual activists recently, it caused a chorus of criticism from the pro-family lobby across the country.

Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says Racicot's address at a Human Rights Campaign meeting in early March is the latest in a series of apparent efforts by the Bush Administration to court the homosexual vote. Knight believes the GOP has been misguided about its pro-family Christian voter base.

"I think there is a view in the White House that somehow Christian conservatives will stay in the GOP camp no matter what they do on the homosexual issue -- and that if they promote homosexuality, that will give them a look of compassion among, say, suburban housewives," he says.

"Somebody is feeding them exactly the wrong advice: to move to the left on homosexual activism."

Knight calls this strategy "a recipe for disaster" and maintains the pro-family Christian voters will not accept this compromise. Saying it will not go unnoticed by conservatives in the GOP, he laments: "Some GOP leaders seem intent on cutting off their right arm in order to reach out with their left."

He suggests Christians start returning contribution requests with a note saying they will contribute only when the GOP changes its pro-homosexual policy.

© 2003 AgapePress all rights reserved.

[TaxRelief]

Bet the libertarians love ya...

[AmericanInTokyo]

One reckons at these "gay" GOP conventions, they must 'double up' in their hotel rooms for more than just cust-cutting reasons.

[Plutarch]

It didn't include any of the convoluted rationale and number crunching nonsense...

Convoluted? What could be more linear? Use your own numbers, and see what huge shifts in voting can be expected:

1. % of lesbian population that can be converted to Republican: _____ (i.e. 0%)

2. % of male population that is gay:______

3. % of gay males who are receptive to becoming Republican:____

4. Multiply #2 above by #3 and divide by 2, and you'll arrive at the monumental percentage total Racicot is supposedly chasing.

There is undoubtedly a population that is sympathetic to gays, and feels more comfortable with the GOP if the GOP is more comfortable with homosexuals. This population includes just about all the media, and it is for the media that these overtures are likely being made.

If Racicot is saying that Republicans welcome gay voters, and will pursue policies that leave them alone, no one on the Right will object. But the homosexual organizations will likely press for gay marriage at the least, and there the Republicans would be fools to go.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Big Tent? Sheesh, it's liable to turn into a Big Bath House.

[Kevin Curry]

The 2000 GOP platform opposes “gay marriage,” homosexuals in the military, and supports the right of the Boy Scouts to reject homosexual scoutmasters.

I don't care who Racicot speaks with. I will become concerned when and if the party platform changes.

[jmc813]

Actually, I agree with almost evcerything you say. I think 'homophobe' is a pretty stupid term myself. It suggests that people are afraid of gays. I hate militant gay activism and agenda-pushing as much as anyone else. I was referring moreso to the "gays are evil" faction that is a small but vocal minority here. There are actually people who think that gays should be punished by death. Scary stuff.

[Ciexyz]

The RNC will do whatever it takes to win the next election. Sheesh, this is politics, after all.

However, they better not backtrack on abortion.

[supercat]

There is undoubtedly a population that is sympathetic to gays, and feels more comfortable with the GOP if the GOP is more comfortable with homosexuals. This population includes just about all the media, and it is for the media that these overtures are likely being made.

Yup.

Liberals have gotten very good at stating a reasonable public goal while in fact pursuing a much more sinister private goal. One useful way for Republicans to expose liberals' duplicity is to offer to help the liberals achieve their reasonable public goal in a way which doesn't happen to support the sinister private goal. Done right, this will get the liberals to start quibbling over issues which wouldn't matter to them if their motives were as pure as they claim.

Reminds me of an old civil war code-related story. A spy wanted to send a coded message to his commander, so he ordered sent "Father is dead". The telegraph operator, fearing it might be code, sent instead "Father is deceased". The telegraph operator's suspicions were confirmed when he received the reply, "Is father dead or deceased?"

[Qwerty]

"PING! in case you want to do it all over again. "

LOL.. of course! I seemingly never tire of beating my head against a brick wall...

[doc]

Why don't the republicans push for homosexual adoption while they are at it!

[Qwerty]

I sort of agree. I think courting the homosexual vote probably loses them more votes than it gains them in the short term, but it might be a good long term strategy though. Who else will the Christian conservatives vote for? Hillary? All they need to do is lose a few elections and the CC's will come back. At that point, you've broadened the base to include homosexuals, and taken an issue from the dems.

I might be wrong, but I think long term it might actually be better for the Repubs.

Personally, I'm more interested in the AW issue at this point. That will be the primary issue for me if it makes its way to the President's desk.

[Bonaparte]

The homo vote or homo money? I think it's the latter.

[The Red Zone]

Who else will the Christian conservatives vote for? Hillary?

A Pat Robertson type candidate, maybe?

[Blue Scourge]

I believe you misunderstood Polycarp's statement.

I don't believe he was saying that we shouldn't associate with sinners, cause none of us are sinless. Jesus worked among the sinners, the outcasts of the time, but he never comprimised himself or his goals with them or as Polycarp incinuated pulled a quid pro quo deal with them. I think it was just simple misunderstanding on your behalf..no big deal.

Yes Jesus opened his arms to all, he was loving, kind and caring. But he was also righteous and just, as he often showed by rebuking people for hypocritical and false statements.

But I'm off topic. I try to deal with people with the standard set by Jesus, I don't always do it. But I always try to hate the sin and not the sinner. I try to love others and treat others as I would like to be treated, but I do not compromise what I know is right, and what I stand for. If that means offending someone or a group than so be it. You have to step on toes from time to time to get people's attention.

The same goes with how I treat homosexuals, I've known several in my lifetime. My mom was good friends with a pair of Lesbians...(please no jokes, she's straight)....and I consider them good people. I treat them with kindness and respect, but they know I do not condone their lifestyle and I have told them so. Instead of calling me a homophobe they respected my opinion and me all the more for sticking to it. But as kind as I am to them on a personal level, I am loudly opposed to the "Gay Agenda".

[Qwerty]

Might as well vote Dem.

[Deport Billary]

Bush got about 25% of the homo vote (roughly 4% of voters). I don't see how he could possibly improve on that. Better to try and win a majority of the straight people next time.

[narses]

I have no problem with Republicans trying to make clear that they're no enemy of people who merely wish to be lift alone to interact with other, fully-consenting, adults.

What is a "fully-consenting" adult? What can they "consent" to? What role does or should the State have in defining the family and defending it?

[Poohbah]

Now pro-family voters don't provide enough votes to keep the RNC machine moving?

Out here in California, they can be relied upon to supply votes if the candidate has no chance of actually winning.

If the candidate suddenly looks like he might win, they manufacture some imagined sin against their beliefs and work like hell to split the vote and get radical pro-aborts elected.

They then complain that the GOP "has a vendetta against pro-life activists" when the GOP doesn't trust them after such stunts.

And as someone who is pro-life, I'm getting pretty damn sick of it.

[Poohbah]

See post #98 for a more detailed answer--the pro-life community is its own worst enemy.

[alwaysconservative]

I respect both your and Polycarp's opinions as genuine and heartfelt, but I feel that you are ignoring the message of Jesus, and in particular, His giving sight to the man who was blind from birth. Look at that story closely. And look elsewhere in the accounts of His life. Who does he rebuke? Who does he chastise? Those who think they have the right to look down on others for one reason or another, those who try to profit from the practice of religion, and those who ignore the suffering of their brethren. Who is YOUR neighbor, after all?