Gays and the GOP

How a Republican group is trying to make sexual orientation a ‘non-issue’ for the party

July 3 — Gays have always been more likely to vote Democrat. But as the 2004 White House race shifts into gear—and the issue of same-sex marriage becomes a national talking point—a few Republicans are stepping up their efforts to attract homosexuals into the big tent.

YET WILL GAY voters ever really feel welcome in a GOP that is backed by a legion of conservative Christians? One of the party organizations trying to make that happen is the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC)—a group of gay and straight party members established more than two years ago in a bid to make sexual orientation a “non-issue” among their supporters. A Wedge Is Born: Gay Marriage and 2004

The RUC was one of several groups that filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief arguing that the Texas sodomy law, struck down by the Supreme Court last week, was unconstitutional. Describing itself as less a grass-roots movement than one for “grass tops”—Republicans with long-established and often powerful roles in the GOP—the RUC’s big-name members include former president Gerald Ford and former Wyoming senator Alan K. Simpson. Simpson, the group’s honorary chairman, spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Arlene Getz this week about gay Republicans, the religious right and the 2004 election. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why did you join the Republican Unity Coalition? Allan K. Simpson: I don’t think there’s anyone in America [who] doesn’t have someone close to them who’s part of the gay or lesbian population. I met the head of the Log Cabin Republicans [a gay GOP group] almost 10 years ago when I was working on immigration [legislation.] They had the same conflicts about abortion, about taxes—there really wasn’t much discussion about the gay-lesbian issue. At the end of it I said I had no idea of the kind of anguish that they must go through, none. I said that if I can help turn that tide then I’d be glad to do so … Then there’s my deep regard and affection for Dick and Lynne Cheney and [their gay daughter] Mary, whom I watched grow up.

One of the RUC’s goals is to sideline the influence of religious conservatives in the GOP. RUC honorary chairman Alan K. Simpson We don’t have any concept of sidelining anyone. That’s not our intent at all.

What about sidelining their agenda? I’m not into anything but the awareness of tolerance and the importance of an honest appraisal of acceptance. It matters not to me what they do. I don’t do those things to sideline anybody. We’re not asking for anything special [for gays]—just openness, honesty, tolerance. Even the word acceptance may not be good, because you don’t have to accept anybody in life.

This doesn’t sound like a traditional Republican speaking. That’s a stereotype. What’s always curious to me is how liberal-progressive people are always babbling about how they never stereotype. Well, that’s B.S. I don’t know what the hell I am—conservative, liberal? You figure it out.

How much is the religious right shaping the GOP’s agenda? I would see people at rallies as I campaigned for [the first President] Bush and [Bob] Dole and the second Bush and I would say: “You apparently are part of the Christian right. What do you believe that’s so frightening to the rest of us?” They said: “We believe that the educational system is a failure. We think the entertainment industry is debasing America. We feel that the soaps in the afternoons consist of the horniest people that have ever [roamed] the earth scratching at every orifice. And we believe in God.” What’s wrong with those people? What is the evil of the “Christian right?” They believe in God and they believe in family values. What is so horrific about that?

I’m not judging their values, just asking the extent to which they are influencing the party? It is always brought up in a negative way. That’s the way it is.

What about their disapproval of gays? I’m not comfortable with some of their views, especially with regard to homosexuality. My view doesn’t match theirs on abortion. But I think the Republicans are getting smart enough now to realize [the value of] what Reagan said—give me a guy who’s with me 70 percent of the time instead of some jerk who’s against me 100 percent of the time. The 100 percenters in our party are less, thank heavens, because the hundred percenters are the guys you want to stay away from. They’re people who seethe. Those are the people who didn’t vote [for George Bush in 1992] and gave us Bill Clinton. And if there’s ever a group of people who think of the anti-Christ as Bill Clinton, then it’s the archconservative right-wing people you and I describe.

Are you saying that because they’ll back George W. Bush in 2004 whatever happens, he can start reaching out to moderates like those represented by the RUC. I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that I think there’s less chance this time of a flight of those people from the presidential race on the basis of their “agenda.” They know that George W. Bush is listening to them.

Is the GOP’s big tent getting smaller? I don’t think so. If you want to go and look at the big tent shrinking, go and look at the Democrats. The fabric is unraveling at the edge of their tent because if they nominate Howard Dean, they can kiss half the Congress goodbye.

Can a group like the RUC fit into a Republican Party dominated by Karl Rove? They are fitting within it, because in it are people Karl Rove is going to count on to help George W. Bush get re-elected—like Jerry Ford and Mary Cheney and [former congressman] Michael Huffington.

So there are no tensions between those in the RUC and those on the right? I do not see that, because when they surface, they’re not getting the acceptance that they have before. Ten years ago, after a decision like this [the Texas sodomy case] in the court, airwaves would have been filled with the horror of the destruction of the family. Now, sure it’s out there. But not in any way like it would have been 10 years ago.

Yet less than three months ago, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum caused an uproar by likening homosexual activity to bigamy and incest. I thought [those comments] were sad. I know Rick and I respect him, but I think that view was a little bit bizarre.

I have a problem with ANY group participating as a GROUP instead of as individuals; blacks, Hispanics, gays, Muslims, whatever. America is about INDIVIDUAL rights, not about group rights. Of course, the Judicial System screwed this one up with their "Communities of interest" in redistricting matters.

Hmmmm how would they redistrict to take in gays as a group, aside from SanFran?

The only top-tier Nazi Leader who was not a "homosexual" was Himmler - and possibly Hitler, although he was a homosexualist. Do some reading. You have bought the lie that "gays" were the victims. They weren't. "Gays" were the perpetrators. Don't think it couldn't happen in the U.S. We are well along the path to totalitarianism; each new, counterfeit right is another step along the slippery slope of ever-increasing tolerence - until one day morality and the individual is outlawed.

That is completely different than the Republican party making the "gay" agenda part of their platform.

As I had indicated in my original post, I welcome them to the party so long as they realize that "gay rights" are counter to the party philosophy.

"No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden Rule into his life conduct." --Theodore Roosevelt
"If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." --G. K. Chesterton

I know this isn't a 10 Commandment thread, but here is evidence from a great American and a great thinker and moralist showing that morality and civiliation are inextricably bound together. Until the last 25 years, no sane person would have ever thought that the homo-activists would ever have achieved what they have now. Same sex acts have always been considered deviant, sick, immoral, harmful, and illegal. There is only ONE reason why anyone thinks differently about it today: the destruction of moral absolutes, helped by Kinsey, Marx and Lenin, and a host of atheists, hedonists and secular humanists, and aided and abetted by shallow religionists of all stripes.

Political alignment should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

True, but that violates the second law of homosexuality. To wit:

To the mentally healthy person (heterosexual), sex is something they do
To the mentally diseased person ('homosexual'), sex is everything they are

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.