Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Republicans fight perceived oxymoron
Associated Press ^ | 10/20/06 | DAVID CRARY

Posted on 10/20/2006 12:22:57 PM PDT by presidio9

They are members of an increasingly exclusive club — a district attorney and a mayor from southern California, a legislator from Minnesota, a handful of others scattered across the country. They are elected officials who are Republican and openly gay.

"People think it's an oxymoron," said the Minnesota state senator, Paul Koering. "How can you be gay and be in the Republican Party?"

Never more than a tiny fraction of GOP politicians, openly gay Republicans are about to disappear from Congress with the retirement of Rep. Jim Kolbe (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, and Koering is the lone openly gay GOP state legislator — out of 7,382 seats nationwide. The Democrats, by contrast, have 56 openly gay legislators and embrace an array of gay-rights causes.

Against that backdrop is the scandal involving Republican Mark Foley. The former Florida congressman who abruptly quit because of sexually explicit messages he sent to male pages, and later acknowledged he is gay. Some conservatives cite the scandal as reason for the GOP to further distance itself from gays; others think that's a long-term losing strategy.

According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which supports gay candidates, there are about 350 openly gay elected officials nationwide — up from about 50 in 1990. Of those elected on party tickets, 140 are Democrats and 11 are Republicans, the fund said.

Victory Fund president Chuck Wolfe said the ranks of openly gay GOP candidates have dwindled in recent years as religious conservatives have expanded their influence and made opposition to same-sex marriage a high-profile issue in the 2004 election.

Instead of an all-welcoming "big tent," the GOP "is more of a revival tent," Wolfe said. "It has chased out more and more gay Republicans."

Among those determined to stay is Peter Hankwitz, a TV producer and talent manager who is the GOP nominee challenging incumbent Democrat Brad Sherman for a congressional seat in California's San Fernando Valley.

Hankwitz is a heavy underdog, without funding from national GOP committees. Yet state Republican officials have been supportive, even posing for pictures with Hankwitz and Julian Trevino, his domestic partner since 1997.

Hankwitz resents what he calls "single-issue social politics" — such as the ban-gay-marriage campaign — and wishes he could get to Congress to help moderate his party.

"Unfortunately, we're influenced by the people on the extreme right and extreme left," he said.

Southern California already has openly gay Republicans in office — including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin.

Gin says he has no qualms about remaining Republican.

"I believe in the basic tenets — limited government, individual rights, a strong economy and national defense," he said. "It's important to me to provide a more moderate voice."

Likewise, Koering — who opposes abortion and gun control — wants to keep working within the GOP. He recently won a primary over a conservative whose campaign stressed "moral values."

"It would be easy for me to go to the Democrats — they court me on a daily basis," Koering said. "But my home is in the Republican Party. I'm not going to let the people with a radical agenda kick me out."

Nationally, GOP officials have voiced no concern about the scarcity of openly gay officeholders. Tara Wall of the Republican National Committee and Alex Johnson of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee said it wasn't a priority.

"We look for good candidates who believe in our message," said Johnson. "If they happen to be gay, it's their prerogative."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the issue is not a candidate's sexual orientation in and of itself. "It's whether they support pro-family policies," he said.

Democratic politicians generally seek gay support and encourage gay candidacies.

Gay Democrats have won legislative seats even in seemingly inhospitable territory, scoring breakthroughs recently in Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia.

Perkins said the GOP shouldn't worry about losing votes of gays because their numbers are dwarfed by Christian conservatives. He predicted that any GOP presidential hopeful deemed a gay-rights supporter would be denied the 2008 nomination.

The Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition urged the GOP to reject the concept of a "big tent" welcoming gays.

"What happens is not a happy tent like the Barnum and Bailey circus," he said. "You end up with a lot of mush in it."

Sheldon predicted that Republican organizers, because of the Foley scandal, would be more aggressive in asking if prospective candidates are gay.

The president of the largest national gay rights group, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, said the GOP was at a significant crossroads.

"Most Americans believe both parties ought to be open and inclusive," he said. "So you've got the Republican leadership in a quandary: how do you balance that public sentiment ... with the powerful voting bloc of the radical right?"

For nearly 30 years, a group called Log Cabin Republicans has lobbied to make the GOP more open to gays. Its executive vice president, Patrick Sammon, is optimistic.

"Anti-gay Republicans want a narrow agenda that only 25 to 30 percent of Americans actually agree with," Sammon said. "Republican officeholders are shrewd enough to understand that's a losing strategy, that the party risks being on the wrong side of history."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fakebutaccurate; homosexualagenda; liberallyingliars; logcabinrepublicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last
To: HitmanLV
In my experience most people fixated on sexual sin have an enormous blind spot:

OK, so long as we're clear on that.
101 posted on 10/21/2006 8:52:19 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

I call them like they are.


102 posted on 10/21/2006 8:55:28 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
I'm not saying they aren't going against the book.. but you are wrong in thinking they are the only class of people to do so.

Hah. You're wrong to think that I think that. And, you're still trying to rebut a point that I'm not even trying to make.

Once again, let me restate it: my beef is not with sinners, but with people who won't even agree in the abstract that sin is sin, without regard to their particular practice of that sin.
103 posted on 10/21/2006 8:56:35 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV
I call them like they are.

You call them like you see them...sometimes, that's quite a different statement.
104 posted on 10/21/2006 8:57:18 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
I choose to pick the best person to put my country in the best place for as many people to have a great relationship with God.. and sometimes that means voting someone who is not Christian or a homosexual.

Sure. However, all other things being equal, I'll vote for the one who isn't a known thief, homosexual or other deviant (assuming they exist).
105 posted on 10/21/2006 9:04:12 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
You've made some great points. Common sense is in short supply these days.

I must confess I am very disappointed in Condi Rice. There is no such thing as a homosexual, who claims to have a domestic partner, having a mother in law. That recognition just feeds in the misconceptions of the wacky left, and irrational disregard for reality. In that regard, gay Republican is very much an oxymoron!
106 posted on 10/22/2006 12:30:14 PM PDT by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

That's just stupid. There is no reason that this society can't have domestic partners if so chooses to do so. The problem I have comes in the definition of marriage.

Like I tried to tell the other guy who just doesn't get it. We weren't meant to take God's law and force people to be Christians.

That's un-Christian in itself.


107 posted on 10/23/2006 7:02:15 AM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
We weren't meant to take God's law and force people to be Christians.

Where, exactly, have I advocated that? Quote, please.
108 posted on 10/23/2006 8:29:45 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
"I'm not saying they aren't going against the book.. but you are wrong in thinking they are the only class of people to do so."



I must interject even though the post was not to me.

No they are not the only people who "go against the book", (I reject the word class) However, it is not the people we are against, it is the behavior and the forcing of their ideology on everyone else. When was the last time you saw a parade to celebrate pride in lying? adultery? pornography? voyeurism? coveting thy neighbor? stealing? etc?

When was the last time you saw proposals to give any of the above sins special recognition or the right to exercise their chosen sin? When was the last time you saw a proposal for a law banning speech that disagrees with their right to conduct their lives as they wish and behave in such a way as to sin in their chosen way? When was the last time you saw or heard of schools teaching that those behaviors were healthy and normal and just another lifestyle choice? When have you ever heard of churches being attacked for preaching the wrongs of any of these behaviors?

THAT is what we don't support. THAT is why we are forced to focus on this particular sin, and not others. And anyone who is in our party with the objective to change or soften the party to their chosen behavior and for helping to grant these special recognitions for it, does not belong there.
109 posted on 10/23/2006 11:46:51 AM PDT by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

56 openly gay Dhimmis in one state legislature? My God, the Dhimmis are now just the gay party, I guess.


110 posted on 10/23/2006 11:50:52 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

If you vote for those type of people to be in office it's like you are for it yourself.


111 posted on 10/23/2006 12:08:13 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

How can we have a discussion when you aren't being honest?

People haven't equated pornography to freedom of speech?

Where have you been?


112 posted on 10/23/2006 12:09:13 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
Yes they have, BUT they are not exposing school kids to it, they are not having parades to celebrate it. And the ones promoting it as free speech are the same activists promoting the gay agenda, and in fact a lot of pornography IS of the homosexual behavior.

You don't see communities fighting to keep homosexuals out, but they do fight pornography shops all the time.
113 posted on 10/23/2006 12:18:47 PM PDT by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

Homosexuals are free to make cohabitation contracts same as ANYONE under current law.

Marriage under the law has NOTHING to do with religion in law. Homosexuals have adopted the blind spot meme that all opposition to homosexuals is founded in religion. This is 100% false and in fact just a propaganda lie.

There are many secular and legal reasons to oppose homosexuals being rewared for the stampl of normalcy to their abnormal lifestye choice. Society has every justifiable and sound right to establish marriage as one man and one woman. Homosexuals contribute nothing to societies future and thus society has every reason to disincentive their choices.


114 posted on 10/23/2006 12:18:47 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
If you vote for those type of people to be in office it's like you are for it yourself.

"those type of people"? You're digging the hole even deeper. Where have I said that I would vote for the type of people who "take God's law and force people to be Christians"? I've only ever stated that I would NOT vote for people who try to tell me that sin is not sin. Your own fixations have caused you to leap well beyond anything I've said.

In fact, if you interpret your words against anything I've actually said, you have come dangerously close to saying that no Christian should hold public office, because they would force people to be Christians. I hope that's not what you meant, but against the backdrop of MY ACTUAL WORDS, it's hard to interpret it differently.
115 posted on 10/23/2006 12:27:16 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

We are in total agreement.


116 posted on 10/23/2006 2:39:16 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

Apparently you aren't able to back yourself up on that point and have just proven where you stand.


117 posted on 10/23/2006 2:40:16 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
Apparently you aren't able to back yourself up on that point and have just proven where you stand.

I see - because you IMAGINE I've said something I didn't say, and then when you can't SHOW that I said something I didn't say, somehow I'M the one who has to "back myself up". With logic like that, I'm amazed that you've lasted this long on Free Republic.

Keep digging. You may yet get to China.
118 posted on 10/23/2006 3:06:13 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Get a load of this...


119 posted on 10/23/2006 3:07:25 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
You're right LM, there are plenty of reasons outside of religion.

My responses to almond were only to answer why this sin in particular was something the we are "fixated" on. As I told him, we aren't the ones fixated, and further, we are against the others as well. It only appears this one is more distasteful to us because it is the only one people tend to want to justify, get special rights to commit, and force everyone else to accept as not a sin at all.

That is why the religious aspect of this was elaborated on at all.
120 posted on 10/23/2006 3:58:23 PM PDT by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson