Gays and Social Conservatives

Ramesh Ponnuru's NRO piece yesterday on gays and social conservatives was off the mark in several respects. While I do not presume to speak for all social conservatives, I can speak for Family Research Council, which was one of the first organizations to object to RNC Chairman Marc Racicot's meeting with the Human Rights Campaign.

First, FRC did not suggest that "such meetings never take place." While we might question Mr. Racicot's judgment and the prudence of such a meeting, the RNC chairman is free to meet with whomever he wishes, just as FRC is free to criticize such meetings. FRC did question, however, the clandestine nature of the meeting. Even senior officials at the RNC, who had been kept in the dark, privately expressed shock that Mr. Racicot had met with the HRC leadership. If this was, as Mr. Racicot suggests, merely a routine meeting of the sort the RNC chairman regularly attends as part of his official duties, then why the secrecy? No press was allowed to attend the meeting, and no record of his comments to the group was made so far as is known. Only the gay press and HRC itself have publicly characterized the substance of the meeting. So far, Mr. Racicot has not disavowed those characterizations or the statements attributed to him.

Moreover, the comments attributed to Mr. Racicot at the meeting are most disturbing, especially those which implied that religious conservatives who oppose the gay political agenda are motivated by fear and ignorance. Again, if these statements are accurate, then Mr. Racicot appears to be utterly tone deaf - or openly hostile - to traditional values voters who comprise the vast bulk of the Republican (and President Bush's) political base. The comments attributed to Mr. Racicot, if accurate, are rooted in religious bigotry. Or was he merely pandering to the prejudices of the HRC activists?

Again, social conservatives found the Racicot-HRC meeting troubling because of the secrecy surrounding it. Only the gay activists who attended the meeting know whether the RNC chairman offered a vigorous defense of marriage and family. Did he disavow the relevant planks in the GOP platform? Did he promise HRC anything? We simply don't know.

Unfortunately, Mr. Racicot has a history of conducting business with the gay lobby under conditions of secrecy. As governor of Montana in November 2000, he signed an executive order establishing "sexual orientation" as a protected civil right without the benefit of public hearings or public notice (possibly violating the state's open meetings law). Only gay activists were invited to the hearing that preceded Gov. Racicot's action and opponents were kept entirely in the dark. The governor's action preempted the Montana Legislature, which had refused to pass an expansion of civil rights to encompass sexual conduct. Gov. Racicot simply added this provision to existing state law by executive fiat.

Finally, Mr. Ponnuru sniffs at the idea that social conservatives might stay home in the 2004 election if the GOP and President Bush are perceived as going wobbly on the defense of marriage and other pro-family issues. Mr. Pronnuru charges social conservative leaders with "threatening more than they can deliver." Let me be clear: FRC never threatened anybody. We did, however, warn the White House that the GOP drift on marriage and such aspects of the gay agenda such as domestic partner benefits, hate crimes, and such, could cause some social conservative voters to stay home.

While Mr. Ponnuru might find this idea fantastic, Karl Rove still laments that four million evangelicals failed to vote in 2000. Since church attendance was the single best indicator of voting behavior, the stay-at-home evangelicals cost Mr. Bush the popular vote and very nearly the election. If these evangelical voters were not highly motivated by eight years of the smarmy Clinton presidency, and were not eager to "run to the polls" and put the whole sorry Clinton era behind them, then it is dangerous to dismiss the possibility they might stay home again on Election Day 2004 if their core issue is treated in a cavalier fashion.

Mr. Ponnuru is doubtless right that on a whole array of issues social conservatives love and support President Bush. But they are no less committed to the sanctity of marriage and family. For millions of voters, the sanctity of marriage and family are issues that transcend politics. The GOP goes wobbly on these issues at its considerable peril.

Poll finds Santorum's support remains steady In an interview with The Associated Press published in late April, Santorum said he believed states have a right to ban gay sex or other private behaviors "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," he said.

The comments drew criticism from gay-rights groups and Democratic presidential candidates, but the poll suggested Santorum's views may be in line with the mainstream of Pennsylvania voters.

White House backs Santorum; he's 'inclusive' & other Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have affirmed their support for Santorum.

Republicans Confident Gay Rights Issue Will Hurt Dean Richard White (search), a Republican state senator from Mississippi, said any candidate talking about gay rights might as well not even visit his state.

"The people down here, they are not going to put up with that kind of stuff," White said. "We're not prepared for all that in Mississippi or anywhere else in the southern states."

SODOMY : Santorum Crisis Exposes Republican Weakness The Rick Santorum controversy has illuminated a serious problem in the Republican Party: its leaders seem woefully ill-prepared to defend the pro-family position on homosexuality.

SODOMY : Texas Phys.Resource Council, Christian Med. & Dental Association, Catholic Med.Association Sodomy is an efficient method of transmitting STDs. And regardless of the reason, same-sex sodomy is far more effective in spreading STDs than opposite-sex sodomy. Multiple studies have estimated that 40 percent or more of men who practice anal sex acquire STDs. In fact, same-sex sodomy has resulted in the transformation of diseases previously transmitted only through fecally contaminated food and water into sexually caused diseases primarily among those who practice same-sex sodomy.

An Open Letter to David Horowitz Second, homosexual activists are not content to be tolerant of Christians and other faith groups or of our beliefs about homosexuality as a sin and a sexual perversion. Homosexual groups like HRC are determined to silence any opposition to the homosexual agenda. They are working aggressively to impose restrictions on our freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion-in public, private, and religious organizations. These efforts are typically carried out by imposing speech codes in schools and by passing "hate crime" laws that punish speech and religious expression.

Homosexuals are intolerant of anyone who opposes their agenda. And what is this agenda? It has been spelled out repeatedly throughout the past thirty years.

For example, at the 1993 homosexual March on Washington, homosexual activists issued a detailed list of their demands and goals. Among those demands was the lowering of the age of sexual consent so that homosexuals can gain legal access to children; the abolition of any laws prohibiting sexual behavior between "consenting adults" (legalizing prostitution and sodomy); and the passage of laws prohibiting so-called "discrimination" against drag queens, transsexuals, or cross-dressers in public employment. The March on Washington demands are available here: 1993 March on Washington Demands.

In 1987, two homosexual activists outlined how they would "overhaul straight America" in an article published by Guide magazine. These strategists created a marketing strategy designed to vilify their opponents and to portray themselves as "victims" in a media blitz that has gone on for years. You will learn a great deal about the homosexual agenda by reading this article: "The Overhauling of Straight America."

As a former Communist, you are undoubtedly aware of the Marxist background of Harry Hay, who is considered the father of the modern-day homosexual "rights" movement. Hay formed the Mattachine Society and based it upon the Communist cell principle and revolutionary activism.

You are also undoubtedly aware of Leslie Feinberg, a radical Marxist and male-to-female transgender who is an editor with the Worker's World Party. Feinberg is fueling both transgender activism (blurring the distinctions between male and female) as well as being a major influence in the anti-war efforts by ANSWER and other anti-American groups. Feinberg and others view homosexuality and transgenderism as "sexual liberation" from all social norms.

Even senior officials at the RNC, who had been kept in the dark, privately expressed shock that Mr. Racicot had met with the HRC leadership. If this was, as Mr. Racicot suggests, merely a routine meeting of the sort the RNC chairman regularly attends as part of his official duties, then why the secrecy? No press was allowed to attend the meeting, and no record of his comments to the group was made so far as is known. Only the gay press and HRC itself have publicly characterized the substance of the meeting. So far, Mr. Racicot has not disavowed those characterizations or the statements attributed to him.

Moreover, the comments attributed to Mr. Racicot at the meeting are most disturbing, especially those which implied that religious conservatives who oppose the gay political agenda are motivated by fear and ignorance. Again, if these statements are accurate, then Mr. Racicot appears to be utterly tone deaf - or openly hostile - to traditional values voters who comprise the vast bulk of the Republican (and President Bush's) political base. The comments attributed to Mr. Racicot, if accurate, are rooted in religious bigotry. Or was he merely pandering to the prejudices of the HRC activists?

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.