Gay Republicans fight perceived oxymoron

Associated Press ^ | 10/20/06 | DAVID CRARY

[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."

[gidget7]

"Would I elect a homosexual or an adulterer? Maybe. Would I elect someone who seeks to convince people that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality or adultery? Extremely unlikely."


Well said. My only other concern is like this article says, someone who gets elected with the purpose of "softening" peoples views on social issues, and doesn't say so, until an article like this runs.

[gidget7]

"One problem I find with some particularly religious people is that when it comes down to moral issues, they have an unusual fixation on sexual matters."



Sexual matter ARE moral issues. Gee ya think that might be why?? When one moral issue falls away, the rest naturally follow, like it or not that is the way it is. The left has known this, and used it to their advantage for years!

[gidget7]

"Sin is sin and adultery is just as much a sin in God's eyes as homosexuality.
Do you really think that God can't distinguish between sins? "



There are sins...............and then there are abominations.

[HitmanLV]

I;ve seen some strange policy-based proposed laws on FR - like making adultery illegal, or an adulterous spouse losing their fair share of marital property. These strange policy positions on FR are not uncommon at all.

I also don't think chosing not to vote for any member of a particular class is a policy position. It's certainly a bias, but I don't see it as directly mandating a practical policy as reflected in our laws.

[HitmanLV]

I didn't dispute that sexual matters is a moral issue. I was just posing the unusual fixation on sexual matters that a lot of religious folks focus on.

Like I said, gossip is a sin, a moral matter, and more common than sinful sexual matters, and it's not something religious folks fixate on.

[HitmanLV]

I'm glad you see that God can distinguish between sins.

[gidget7]

It is the activists who are fixated on this issue, which has forced us to be. Our wish would be LESS fixation, on public on all fronts! If only they would allow it!

In fact our whole issue is their fixation, and stopping it. Sorry, but if you dumb down morality in anyway to young minds, you have what we do have now in most major cities. Liberal utopias. Crime is rampant and so is waiting around for the government to do what is up to the individual to do for himself. The following from Ben Stein puts it quite well:

"Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina)

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc., I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school, The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." "

[HitmanLV]

Everything you wrote is true, but t doesn't have much to do directly with what I wrote. The part about God being saddened with us is a legitimate, and I think true, observation.

That's not to say that my mind darts, and fixates on, sinful sexual matters when the topic turns to sinful behavior.

If the folks fixated on sexual sin put 1/3rd the effort and attention to other sinful behavior - gossip, gluttony, selfishness, etc, I think they could be effective. For too many folks, sin becomes a predominantly sexual matter. Clearly, sin isn't predominantly a sexual matter: any adult who seriously limits it that was seriously limits their effectiveness.

[beezdotcom]

I also don't think chosing not to vote for any member of a particular class is a policy position.

Sorry you don't see it that way - I do. Specifically, choosing NOT to vote for an individual (homosexual or otherwise) who specifically states a desire to allow same sex marriage seems to be just one way of promoting a policy position supporting traditional marriage. There are certainly other ways, some more proactive.

[beezdotcom]

If the folks fixated on sexual sin put 1/3rd the effort and attention to other sinful behavior - gossip, gluttony, selfishness, etc, I think they could be effective. For too many folks, sin becomes a predominantly sexual matter. Clearly, sin isn't predominantly a sexual matter: any adult who seriously limits it that was seriously limits their effectiveness.

Sure, motherhood, apple pie, all of that. It's also interesting that there are a large number of folks who seem to devote extra energy to defending sexual sin. Based on the shift in our culture over the last 50 years, I'd say they're winning.

[HitmanLV]

There is certainly a lot invested right now in defending sexual sin, no argument there. I just think moral minded folks would do a lot better to give some other sins legitimate attention.

[beezdotcom]

Like I said, gossip is a sin, a moral matter, and more common than sinful sexual matters, and it's not something religious folks fixate on.

Nice generalization. However, I can guarantee you that we've had more sermons on our church about the evils of gossip than the evils of homosexuality.

[HitmanLV]

It's a legitimate generalization. One reason that many moral-minded folks lack credibility, and have limited success, is because they are gossipers, rumor mongers, etc.

They're sinners too, but the image they convey is that since it's not sex-based sin, they come across better in the cosmic report card.

Whether they sincerely feel that way I can't say - but they do come across that way. Talking out of one's @ss doesn't make a person particularly convincing.

The kind of people whose minds dart to sins of a sexual nature when the topic is 'sin' have hangups and problems. They also have a credibility problem.

[beezdotcom]

It's a legitimate generalization. One reason that many moral-minded folks lack credibility, and have limited success, is because they are gossipers, rumor mongers, etc.

Every generalization is legitimate, until you name names. That's why I could present all the examples to the contrary you might ever want, and you'll still insist I haven't proved the negative.

The kind of people whose minds dart to sins of a sexual nature when the topic is 'sin' have hangups and problems. They also have a credibility problem.

So, what sin should their minds dart to? That's an interesting strawman - you must have hangups and problems about gossip, since that seems to be what YOUR mind darts to. Do you have a credibility problem?

[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.

[HitmanLV]

I made a generalization, not a universalization. The generalization is legitimate, whether you can cope with it or not.

And yes, I admit when matters about sin are discussed I am not fixated on sexual failings. I raised a campaign against gossip just as an example, not as a primary battle cry.

The thing is, a lot of people fixate on sexual issues when matters about morality are raised. It's needlessly limiting, dumb, and not very compelling, in many of the ways that fixation manifests.

In my experience most people fixated on sexual sin have an enormous blind spot: their own sins, which I admit may not be as sexy, but I also point out are fairly sinful and destructive,also.

[Almondjoy]

Amen to that. I guess that's my point.. people like to crusade against homosexuality but there are many other sins people are willing to tolerate.. or at least not start a war against.

People are free to vote for their religious convictions but I know reality is not about that.. the people I have a chance to vote for are all sinners.. most of their sins I never know about if I'm even luckily enough to find out about a few of them. We have to vote based on what they say they will do(how they vote) and if they don't vote that way then we go with someone else. If that means I vote in a homosexual that doesn't make me a fair weather Christian. That simply means that I seperate my personal relationship with God from my politics. 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.

I put my focus where it should be.. leading my myself and my family on how to be better Christians.. learning on how to set an example.. passing good will on to others.. through that I can impact the people that I know and love.

[Almondjoy]

You are simply talking about personal responsiblity.. in which we have to own up to our own lives with God. God didn't give us free will and choice simply for Governments to take it away(ie no adultry, no homosexuality, no divorce, no gossip, no saying the Lords name in vain, no stealing, etc.). He wanted us to have an opportunity to make that choice and to pay the price of that choice in the hear and now or in the next life.

Everyone has the chance at forgiveness and by having laws in place that enforce some of these moral values we may in fact might be just causing people to become jaded and dismissive of Christians in general.. is that what we want? Don't we want to include people?

We can only do that through teaching and love.. not through punishment and hate.

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

Well... they can procreate

Yes, biologically they can. But they always appear puzzled when their procreative efforts result in naught.

[Stultis]

[...] Alex Johnson of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee [...] "We look for good candidates who believe in our message," said Johnson. "If they happen to be gay, it's their prerogative."

[...] Democratic politicians generally seek gay support and encourage gay candidacies.

Actually this highlights a fairly fundamental difference in approach and attitude between Republicans and Democrats.

IOW, would you rather be treated as a person with individual views, or as a demographic class member with an identity group determined ideology?