Posted on 10/06/2014 7:27:31 AM PDT by wagglebee
Billionaire donor Paul Singer held a secret, closed doors meeting with other megadonors to promote same-sex "marriage" within the Republican Party.
The Washington Blade reported that Singer and a number of wealthy donors, politicians, and the head of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) met on Thursday to discuss how to swing the GOP in favor of redefining marriage.
Relying on four anonymous sources, the Blade found that HRC president Chad Griffin, a Democratic operative, was expected to speak at the event. Prominent Republicans are expected to be in attendance, including former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson, who has led lawsuits against California and Virginia in support of same-sex "marriage."
Former GOP Senator Norm Coleman, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman -- who "came out" as gay years after his term ended -- and Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania were also expected to attend. Dent is one of the few House Republicans in favor of changing the legal definition of marriage, while Coleman has lobbied for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on Capitol Hill. Coleman now heads the American Action Network and is on the board of the Republican Jewish Committee.
Singer, whose gay son has reportedly influenced his support for same-sex "marriage," has long been a powerhouse GOP donor on issues like lower taxes and reducing regulations. In the last several years, he has also become a leading influence in the marriage battles, donating at least $10 million to states to redefine marriage.
ConservativeHQ.com editor George Rasley told LifeSiteNews that Singer's efforts could doom the GOP, if the party changes its view on marriage. " Eliminating the Republican platform language in support of Biblical (traditional) marriage would have a disastrous effect on the success of the Republican Party. It would leave millions of voters who hold traditional Judeo-Christian values without a political home," Rasley said.
Rasley, who said that "breaking the Reagan coalition of economic, national security, and social conservatives would be sheer folly for Republicans," also pointed out that Singer "is the latest in a long line of influential people who have tried to remake the Republican Party into a pale shadow of the Democratic Party."
Dr. Jennifer Morse, who founded the Ruth Institute, agreed that if the Republican Party changes its formal views on marriage, "the millions of ordinary people of all ages, races, and religions who value marriage as a pro-child institution will be politically homeless."
"Resistance to the Sexual Revolution has always been lackluster and half-hearted among the top donors of both political parties," Morse said. "I fear that [Singer's] money will be the one and only deciding argument and that the GOP will align itself with the rich and powerful on this issue."
Rasley said that GOP support for same-sex "marriage" would be disastrous to the party's fundraising efforts. "It would spell the end of the Republican Party's grassroots donor base," he predicted. "Grassroots Republican donors clearly remember that when God was mentioned at the 2012 Democratic Convention the audience booed – they will want no part of, and will not support financially, a Republican Party that has the same policies as the Democrats who booed mention of God at their convention."
In addition to the political calculations, Rasley said that "abandoning traditional marriage is the wrong policy morally, because it is contrary to the Biblical teachings that are the foundation of every successful Western society."
It is becoming more obvious each day that the GOP is no longer a viable party for conservatives.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Well, we’ll see if these Gutless Old Party functionaries stand with principle or sell out to the “megadonors.”
I’ll have to admit: if they stand for principle, I’ll be the most surprised guy in the room.
Probably too late for that. The question remaining is whether people with values will have a GEOGRAPHICAL home after the USA collapses.
The only thing which is clear is that the government is no longer capable of defining marriage.
So they’ll sell their souls for money.
That’s not going to work out well.
This will not end well.
You have to question whether any of this matters.
I say that because the courts will eventually impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states.
So what will it matter if the GOP were to say they are in favor of it. Why do that? So liberals won’t bash conservatives in the GOP? And all the while, the courts impose it anyway, and end the debate on this subject via U.S. Supreme Court order at some point anyway???
Social liberals that want low taxes, sounds familiar.
No it most certainly is not, and it will no longer get anything from me including my vote.
Whether or not they remain in elected office is not relevant.
Why is having everyone be made to regard a marriage an imoirtant issue? Isn’t the fact that the Middle Class is being run toward a cliff a worse problem? Isn’t emphasis on the underrated trade jobs is important.
The Republican leadership needs to decide whether it wants to be right or if it wants to be popular. If it chooses to attempt to go along to get along, it loses its way, stands for nothing and is on the road to destruction. If it chooses to be right, then it stands for life. Abortion should not be legal under any circumstances, it is murder. Look, the “gay” population is small but loud. Legal binding, call it marriage, is not that different from forming a business partnership with a partner. Just limit it to two people, that definitely needs to be done. There is a difference between legal and moral. Just because it is legal does not imply it is moral.
Why can’t the Republicans figure this out?
Once traditional marriage and family is destroyed, the secular humanist dream of permissive morality, alternative lifestyles, and experimental lifestyles and the marxist dream of raising children by the stare will be much closer to actuality.The postmodernist dream of restructuring society to reduce oppression of the powerful and to promote new ways of living which includes deviancy will also be closer.
It wants to be in power. Right or wrong doesn’t enter into it.
No, the courts do not have the final word.
A constitutional amendment will resolve the issue and prevent the courts from getting involved.
Marriage is between one man, and one woman.
Simple, clear. The states can regulate the age, and relationships.
We should remember that one of the reasons this is possible is that conservatives are stingy when it comes to supporting their preferences. Were true conservatives rolling in money, the GOPe would get the message.
I support Christian bakers as well as motherhood/fatherhood. The left wants to ban all of them, and the Republicans should campaign on that.
A lot of the republican leadership already support gay marriage. They just don’t publicly say it.
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.