GOP Chairman Racicot Defends Meeting with ‘Gay’ Pressure Group [Alienating the GOP base]

GOP Chairman Racicot Defends Meeting with ‘Gay’ Pressure Group 5/7/2003
By Robert Knight

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

I most emphatically do NOT condone it. I was just responding to a post where gays and aliens and other groups were lumped together indiscriminately because they don't generally vote GOP. I should have limited my remarks to gays and the GOP, because that is what I'm really addressing here when I talk about those on Freep who tell them to get lost. There are no illegal alien Republican clubs to my knowledge, like there is the Log Cabin Republicans for gays. The problem of illegal aliens voting is a different matter altogether.

Pity poor Marc Racicot. He's being called on the carpet by the hyper-paranoid, self-appointed guardians of the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party.

You really should edit your FR Homepage if you want to make comments like that. On your Homepage, you say, "I admire a well reasoned argument, but have little patience for irrational emotionalism, unsubstantiated allegations, ad hominems, hyperbole, hysteria, or obfuscation."

Either that, or make your "well reasoned argument." So far, you haven't.

If I choose to recieve oral sex (sodomy) from my wife, is that bad?

The question was, should we create a special class of citizens based on chosen behavior?

Would you expect special status as a protected minority because of behavior you voluntarily engage in? Should we teach children in schools all about your "special lifestyle?" If we discover that this behavior is causing you some horrible sickness should taxpayers who don't do that be expected to fund research so you can get back to business with your "hobby?"

Those are some of the issues that conservative Republicans are concerned about and why we take issue with these groups who want to move their bedrooms out into the public square.

Thanks for the good example that helps highlight my point.

I said his point was valid that when one forms a special group based on 1 point (e.g., "republican alcoholics") that that is not a group to support.

He actually made more than one point. I was saying that it is a valid point to make. It is valid. Whether its "Pubbie Prostitutes of America" or whatever, one must examine the one point and see if one really wants to be associated with it.

Now, do LogCabinRepub's support Nambla? I would think not. If they did, I'd bet they wouldn't exist in the Republican Party.

That's not to say I support homosexuality. What I do support is every American's right to vote and to be part of the political process.

I am a Christian and I have no problem with the GOP meeting with homosexuals. I have a few gay friends and they often allow me to minister to them. They sometimes open up to the entire Gospel and begin to inspect their lives as a result.

There is a difference between receiving people, treating them fairly and as human beings, and endorsing the extreme elements of the gay lifestyle and agenda. These people are used to rejection and often their rhetoric reflects that. Going out of our way to offend them accomplishes nothing.

You asked how necrophilia and pedophilia was different from homosexual sex. I explained how it was different.

I don't condone homosexual sex, and I don't agree that they should have "special" protections over anyone else, but I don't think you should prosecute everyone for the crimes of a few, so to speak.

I also don't agree that AIDS is still the "homo plague", as you were alluding to. The fastest rising group of infected individuals is heterosexual women.

Allowing people to freely have sex with whomever conesnting adults doesn't create a special class of citizens, IMHO.

I also think, along with this courting of the gays, the GOP will pull its pro-life plank before 2008, if not by 2004.

Won't be on this President's watch. But the RNC may be planning ahead to run another dynamic candidate like Bob Dole!

If the RNC alienates the Christian Conservatives they can expect to be on the outside, (of the White House), lookin' in, for a very, very long time.

"The question was, should we create a special class of citizens based on chosen behavior?

Well articulated.

I would expect only obfuscatory answers to your questions.

You know, Terry, you are freely passing out the insults, but when I called you on your obvious hypocrisy, you accuse me of adding an insult. Incredible.

Your #50 says you didn't mean it as an ad hominem, but it is so obviously an ad hominem that your comment isn't believable. Besides, that's not the only violation of your homepage creed that is in that first post.

Maybe someday you can look back on what you've written and see the truth of what I'm telling you about it.

It appears you are an unrepentent hypocrite, Terry.

You know, Terry

You might want to be sure you know who you're talking to first.

Let's parse what I wrote and see if it's really an ad hominem like you keep claiming.

[Racicot is] being called on the carpet by the hyper-paranoid, self-appointed guardians of the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party.

Hyper-paranoid: This group that met with Racicot is by any measure very reactionary and quite a bit more sensitive to any issue concerning homosexuals than your average Joe. The majority of people don't seem to be nearly as troubled by peaceful homosexuals living their life and minding their own business as these guys. So, hyper-paranoid, check.

self-appointed guardians: Has someone appointed them? No? Then they are self-appointed. Check.

...the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party: My dictionary gives as one of the definitions of troglodyte: A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish. I believe this is a fairly apt description of this collection of neo-Puritans.

Perhaps if you don't like what I said about this ad hoc group of finger waggers, it's because the description is all too fitting, and it reveals what a sad bunch 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.