Posted on 05/09/2003 9:54:18 AM PDT by Polycarp
GOP Chairman Racicot Defends Meeting with ‘Gay’ Pressure Group 5/7/2003
In Hourlong Session, Discusses Homosexual Agenda with 11 Pro-Family Leaders
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a meeting Tuesday with 11 pro-family leaders at GOP headquarters, Republican Party Committee Chairman Marc Racicot defended his March 7 meeting with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest homosexual pressure group.
“I meet with everybody,” Racicot answered in response to a question from American Family Association (AFA) President Don Wildmon, who had called Tuesday’s meeting. Racicot said he was trying to execute “the directive that the president gave me … to carry our message, our principles, to everybody and anybody.”
Asked if President Bush had asked him to meet with HRC, Racicot replied, “no,” and said that the meeting was just part of “outreach.” He reiterated that he would meet with “anybody.”
Major groups attend
I attended the meeting, representing the Culture and Family Institute and Concerned Women for America. Also attending were American Values President Gary Bauer; Family Research Council President Ken Connor; Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Life Issues Institute President John Willke; Rick Scarborough, national co-chairman of Vision America; Traditional Values Coalition President Lou Sheldon; Free Congress Foundation President Paul Weyrich; Inspiration Network Vice President Ron Shuping; Alabama Policy Institute President Gary Palmer; and Home School Legal Defense Association Chairman Michael Farris.
In response to Racicot’s assertion that he would meet with any group, Don Wildmon asked him if he would meet with the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), explaining that NAMBLA advocates sex between men and boys. Racicot said he would not meet with such an “aberrant” group and that he had himself prosecuted child molesters.
Gary Bauer clarified that the point was not to compare homosexuals with NAMBLA members but that organizations draw a line somewhere, knowing that merely meeting with a group conveys some acceptance.
Later, Lou Sheldon brought up the agenda of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), and Racicot said he had not heard of that group. (GLSEN is the leading proponent of pro-homosexual and pro-“transgender” programs in schools, including elementary schools.)
Racicot was pressed on whether it was proper to meet with groups organized around advancing “aberrant” sexual behavior. He was asked directly whether it was normal for two men to have sex. Racicot replied, “No, of course not.” He also acknowledged being “naïve” about how “gay” activists might use the meeting with him to advance their cause.
Criticized on Santorum
Asked why GOP officials did not come to the support of Sen. Rick Santorum when he was under attack for defending the Texas sodomy law, Racicot said, “We did, in fact, talk to reporters.” He offered to bring to the meeting the staffer who handled the calls. Asked if the group could see the press releases that his office issued defending Santorum, Racicot replied that his office did not issue any.
When pressed by Gary Bauer that his meeting with HRC “elevated them. You legitimized them,” Racicot said, “I would agree that is a matter of pause to me. I confess to some naivete.”
Among HRC’s goals are: the legalization of “gay marriage”; the promotion of homosexual parenting and adoption; advancing “transgender” rights, including support for taxpayer-funded transsexual “sex-change” operations; national pro-homosexual employment legislation; national pro-“gay” “hate crimes” legislation; allowing open homosexuals in the military; and expanding homosexuality- and “transgender”-affirming programs in schools.
HRC has been a leader in denouncing religious conservative groups that oppose homosexuality, calling them “extremists.”
Bauer: lot of work to do
On Wednesday, Bauer told Culture & Family Report, “My sense after the meeting was that for reasons I don’t fully understand, we still have a lot of work to do educating the Republican establishment about why this matters.”
Racicot said his own approach to homosexual issues was “a lifelong evolution.”
“There are people I’ve met who are gay — thoughtful people. I know of families with children — some of them are gay. They have a right to be involved in the public discussion," he said.
Racicot also said he didn’t know what caused homosexuality, or how much was “genetic or environment.” He was told that no credible science has found a genetic link to homosexuality.
He noted that he had incurred the wrath of “gay” activists when he had opposed homosexual “marriage” while governor of Montana, but then defended his own issuance of an order adding “sexual orientation” to the state’s nondiscrimination code for state employees. When pressed, he said he would not support a law that imposed it on private employers.
Farris: not about civil rights
Michael Farris, who noted that he had helped write briefs in the Bowers v. Hardwick case (1986) and the current Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case before the Supreme Court, told Racicot that he opposed the Montana executive order, which he saw as part of a larger agenda to undermine basic freedoms of people to disagree with homosexuality. He said that as a free people, Americans have had the right to hire and fire at will except for a “few key things,” referring to civil rights exceptions. Those laws restrict freedom, so they had to be grounded in ample justification, which they were, he said. But sexual behavior has moral implications, so it is not like race.
Racicot replied to the entire group, “You need to be straight up with it. You want a law that says you can dismiss someone solely on the basis of homosexuality.” Various members of the group said no, they did not want to add laws targeting homosexuals or anyone else, but felt that special rights should not be carved out based on sexual behavior.
I told Mr. Racicot that pro-family Americans viewed the homosexual activist agenda as a grave threat for two reasons: First, homosexuality hurts those who practice it. I recited the many health risks and noted the recent San Francisco Health Department report showing a fourfold rise in syphilis among “gay” men, a doubling of the gonorrhea rate, and many other sexually transmitted diseases specific to homosexual conduct. A new, antibiotic-resistant staph infection is now turning up in “gay” communities in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. Pro-family advocates see it as an act of compassion to steer people away from the behavior, not toward it. HRC and groups like GLSEN want children as young as kindergarten to be taught that homosexuality is normal and healthy, despite well-documented medical evidence.
The second reason to oppose homosexual activism, I said, is the threat it poses to freedom. I noted that in Canada, under that country’s hate crime laws, broadcasters are forbidden to criticize homosexuality under penalty of loss of license, and that people who have placed newspaper ads with Bible verses on homosexuality have been hauled before officials and threatened with fines. New York officials, citing the city’s “hate crimes” law, pressured a billboard company to remove a pastor’s billboard message with a Bible verse about homosexuality. As “gay” rights policies and laws advance, I said, people who favor marriage and family and who oppose homosexuality are being harassed — not homosexuals. Furthermore, many people have overcome homosexuality and are living better, richer lives.
Alienating the GOP base
Racicot listened intently during this overview. After Richard Land noted that the GOP’s flirting with homosexual activism “divides its friends and unites its enemies,” Racicot said, “I’m not as suspicious as you. I don’t have the agenda you think I have.”
John Willke told him that the GOP needs Democratic votes to win elections, and that many Democats have two “hot-button family issues — abortion and homosexuality.”
Paul Weyrich said that “we want a clear, strong, unequivocal statement” from the GOP that homosexuality is immoral. Wildmon of AFA also said a statement was needed, and that he was tired of watching the GOP drift in the same direction as the Democrats on the issue of homosexual activism. He noted that if the GOP continued on this path, “we would walk.” He explained that many pro-family voters would not necessarily vote Democratic instead, but just stay home. Gary Palmer noted that millions of evangelical Christians did not vote in the 2000 election, that a vast majority of evangelicals who did vote pulled the GOP lever, and that the razor-thin GOP presidential victory might not be repeated in 2004 if the GOP alienates even more Christians.
Racicot was asked if he would meet with a group of former homosexuals hosted by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. He said, “Of course.”
He denied using the term “gay-baiting,” which The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, referenced this way in a March 21 account of the HRC meeting: “Racicot said he would not tolerate ‘gay-baiting’ ads in Republican election campaigns under his control.”
Asked if his reported comments meant that Republicans could not oppose homosexuality in any campaign, such as Georgia GOP challenger Saxby Chambliss’ ads depicting then-Sen. Max Cleland (D) as siding with homosexual activists against the Boy Scouts, Racicot replied that he backed the Boy Scouts’ stand. He cited as objectionable a Democratic TV ad used in a Montana campaign against the GOP candidate that used innuendo to imply that the candidate had a “gay” background.
Lou Sheldon noted that, in 2000, liberals made an effort to strip the GOP platform of some pro-family planks, and he asked Racicot if there was any effort underway to do the same in the upcoming platform battle. Racicot replied that he had not heard of any such effort and would not support it in any case.
John Willke told him that the GOP needs Democratic votes to win elections, and that many Democats have two “hot-button family issues — abortion and homosexuality.”
Paul Weyrich said that “we want a clear, strong, unequivocal statement” from the GOP that homosexuality is immoral. Wildmon of AFA also said a statement was needed, and that he was tired of watching the GOP drift in the same direction as the Democrats on the issue of homosexual activism. He noted that if the GOP continued on this path, “we would walk.” He explained that many pro-family voters would not necessarily vote Democratic instead, but just stay home. Gary Palmer noted that millions of evangelical Christians did not vote in the 2000 election, that a vast majority of evangelicals who did vote pulled the GOP lever, and that the razor-thin GOP presidential victory might not be repeated in 2004 if the GOP alienates even more Christians.
Ping
I think the family associations, such as Wildmon's, do good things, that they are the base, and that they have a better vision for American families.
At the same time, we must be open to participation by all manner of people. Is it possible to enforce a Christian morality in one area and not enforce it in others? Shouldn't Republicans have a plank about adulterers or About alcoholics if it has one about homosexuality? I don't say this facetiously.
If someone wants to start a Christian Conservative Party that has certain religious requirements for membership, then they have every right to do that and to run candidates from that party.
If, however, there is a greater liklihood of getting some of what you want with a secular POLITICAL party, then there's some leeway that needs to be given.
It's an extremely tough area to define.
Racicot said, “I’m not as suspicious as you. I don’t have the agenda you think I have.” Not consciously, MAYBE, but he's aiding that agenda just the same.
I wonder if he is going ot prisons and meeting with those groups. Is he meeting with street gangs? Is he meeting with "swingers"? Maybe he would like to me with the KKK or NOW. I don't know, I bet we could name groups Racicot would refuse to meet with all day long.
So we see ourselves out in order to win? Exactly what do we win then?
I'd like to attempt a thoughtful response to your thoughtful posting.
I think it's largely a matter of official recognition and, therefore, validation. And so I'd put it this way.
First, there is no doubt that the GOP does in fact do business and form common cause with drunks, druggies, adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, child molestors, and the like.
But, if any of those groups formed an official group identified by that one trait (i.e. "Scarlet Letter Republicans," "Pedophile Pubbies," etc.), then such a group should not and must not receive formal recognition and validation.
I think that's the big issue. And, to be clear, unlike the group in the article, I do intend to draw a parallel between Log Cabin and NAMBLA.
Dan
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.