Posted on 06/04/2003 7:27:28 AM PDT by Remedy
A Republican state representative in New Hampshire announced he is switching his political allegiance because of recent comments by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in a defection analysts said could signal an accelerated trend away from the GOP on homosexuality.
New Hampshire State Rep. Corey Corbin announced he is becoming a Democrat because of what he considers poor treatment of homosexuals in the Republican Party.
"Being a gay man and, up until this week, a Republican, [Santorum's] comments truly summed up for me the attitude of the GOP toward the millions of gay men and women who work, raise families, pay taxes and contribute to our society," Corbin told the National Stonewall Democrats (NSD), a homosexual pressure group within the Democratic Party.
"We are hated, we are marginalized, and are basically unwanted by a party that has forsaken the principles of Abraham Lincoln and become dominated by a right wing that falls far short of representing mainstream America," Corbin said.
If the 2004 race is as close as some predict, voter defections for perceived intolerance of homosexuals could cost the GOP its political majority, analysts said. Polls show that homosexual voters, which make up an estimated 5 percent of the electorate, favor Democratic candidates over Republicans by margins of up to three to one.
John Marble, a spokesman for the NSD - which welcomed Corbin as the newest member of its Elected Officials Caucus - said there were "stark differences" between the Republican and Democratic parties on homosexual issues.
"Certainly, I would think that politicians who are gay would view the Democratic Party as being more supportive of themselves and their families," Marble said.
"I think they demonstrate the chronic problem that exists with the Republican Party, that there is a hard strain of intolerance that may cause people to really see the differences and reevaluate their relationship with the GOP," he added.
Mark Mead, director of public affairs with the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual advocacy group that seeks greater influence in the GOP, said his group was concerned with the defection. But he predicted that in the long run, Log Cabin members would remain loyal to President Bush and the GOP.
"We're going to work on changing the face of the party to make tolerance and inclusion a permanent part of the political landscape, and if Republicans want to stay in the majority, we've got to expand. You win by addition, not by subtraction," Mead said.
Differences between GOP groups opposed to homosexuality and factions such as the Log Cabins could be worked out, Mead said.
"We probably agree on 80 percent of the stuff, and on maybe 20 percent we don't, but it's a heck of a lot more than we might or might not agree on with Democrats," he said.
Santorum support still strong
In an April 7 interview, Santorum commented on a case before the Supreme Court involving a state law that makes certain sexual acts illegal. Santorum noted that the law was challenged on the basis of the "right to privacy" in one's own home.
"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. You have the right to anything," Santorum said.
"Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," he said.
Homosexual advocacy groups and their allies condemned the comments as bigoted, but Santorum did not retract the remarks.
A poll conducted among Santorum's constituents by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute showed that the senator's support had not wavered. His approval rating of 55 percent remained the same as before the controversy began.
In addition, 75 percent said Santorum should not resign as the Senate Republican Conference chairman, as his critics had urged.
Critics likened Santorum's comments to those of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who touched off a national uproar for endorsing the 1948 segregationist campaign of Sen. Strom Thurmond. Lott resigned his leadership post under pressure from Republican leaders.
Pollster John Zogby said, however, that despite the Pennsylvania poll numbers, the Republicans will see defections on the homosexuality issue.
Unlike the reaction to the Lott controversy - which saw Republican revulsion at the comments - Santorum's remarks brought up fear of the Christian right, "that leaning too far against Santorum could alienate the conservatives," Zogby noted.
"It sends a message that the Republicans are going to lean right on gay issues and not compromise, and in that sense, I think Republicans stand to lose some moderate officials, and at the same time, they also stand to lose some centrist voters - soccer moms and the like - who are not terribly comfortable with a 'closed tent,'" Zogby said.
The 2004 Democratic campaign for the presidential nomination is beginning to resemble the contest between then-Vice President Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley, who competed strenuously for homosexual votes in 2000.
Democratic candidates are pursuing major efforts to recruit support among an electorate that in some key primaries could contribute 10 percent or more of the vote.
No, sorry Jorge. I'd rather a dozen Kevin Currys than one arrogant homo-activist forcing his immorality on the rest of us.
First of all I said "most in the GOP", who I am quite sure you do not represent.
Secondly it's not a decision between the "Kevin Currys" and the "arrogant homo-activist forcing his immorality on the rest of us".
You've created a false choice based on your own need to smear those you disagree with.
Most gay Republicans don't fit the stereotyped image you present.... just as most fundamentalist Christians don't fit the homophobic hypocrite stereotype presented by gay radicals.
Frankly most in the GOP are sick of both extremes. And realize that if we ever hope to be in a position to effect any good in this country, we can't have either being perceived as the face the Republican party.
Which brings me back to my original point above.
Gee, for a guy who claims to be against the major points of the homo agenda, you sure do have their lingo and tactics down. No one who has not been indoctrinated by the hard left uses the word "homophobe." In my opinion, it immediately brands that person as a tool of the sexual revolutionaries and someone incapable of thinking for themselves.
In short, when you say you're actually against the "gay" agenda, I don't believe you.
I DON'T CARE if you believe me OR NOT.
My posts...and my stated positions clearly speak for themselves.
If you want to pretend to know what I, who you have never met... REALLY believe in..which is contrary to what I posted, then the readers can judge your sanity for themselves.
You are obviously in such denial over the term "homophobe" that you are willing to make any kind of wild accusations.
Meanwhile I am still waiting for you to articulate a coherant argument against anything I've posted.
Jorge, you are lying and delusional. No one wants "gays" to die.
You're wrong.
Those who've read the threads I am refering to, especially those on Bush pledging $millions to fight AIDS..have run across posts from people who come right out and say that gays deserve to die from AIDS as punishment for their lifestyle...that it is natural selection etc etc..and they are furious that Bush is doing anything to help these people.
You are being way too defensive about this..... I wasn't accusing you personally....but then again, if the shoe fits wear it.
No, he's arguing with you, which appears to be practically the same thing.
You gig was up in my book when you accused him of being in NAMBLA. An underhanded, unsubstantiated smear.
Trace
Another BS artist. If you had any tinge of honesty about you, you'd admit that this nothing but a canard and a lie. You're not arguing with a bunch of brainless, emotional DU posters here.
And you're not fooling anyone. Seriously, which pressure group do you belong to GLAAD? GLSEN? P-FLAG? NAMBLA?
Amazing.
What you lack in your ability to present a coherant challenge to anything I've posted.... you compensate for in your juvenile insults and name-calling. (you belong to "NAMBLA"???...har har!)
The fact, which you seem unwilling to admit..is that MOST people..both Republican and Democrat...ARE concerned with these loco-fanatics who are obsessed with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
You can deny it all you want. But the fact remains most people don't want the sex-police in positions of power.
In fact, most of us consider them to be as perverted, or depraved as anybody else.
No, he's arguing with you, which appears to be practically the same thing.
LOL
Surely you speak from personal experience when it comes to the effectiveness of these organizations..in which case I invite you to share your entire ex-gay testimony with us.
But perhaps they forgot to teach you the importance of letting go of all bitterness and hatred for all those who might not have escaped from this lifestyle as you have.
You do realize that many consider those who are obsessed and overly hostile toward gays to be closet cases who are working TOO hard to maintain their denial.
Hint. Try not to be so obvious.
This I agree with.
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.