PING! 
Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.
Posted on 09/01/2003 11:22:11 AM PDT by GrandMoM
Is there room for gays inside the Republicans' Big Tent?
Gays and the GOP
How a Republican group is trying to make sexual orientation a ‘non-issue’ for the party
By Arlene Getz
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
July 3 — Gays have always been more likely to vote Democrat. But as the 2004 White House race shifts into gear—and the issue of same-sex marriage becomes a national talking point—a few Republicans are stepping up their efforts to attract homosexuals into the big tent.
YET WILL GAY voters ever really feel welcome in a GOP that is backed by a legion of conservative Christians? One of the party organizations trying to make that happen is the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC)—a group of gay and straight party members established more than two years ago in a bid to make sexual orientation a “non-issue” among their supporters. A Wedge Is Born: Gay Marriage and 2004
The RUC was one of several groups that filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief arguing that the Texas sodomy law, struck down by the Supreme Court last week, was unconstitutional. Describing itself as less a grass-roots movement than one for “grass tops”—Republicans with long-established and often powerful roles in the GOP—the RUC’s big-name members include former president Gerald Ford and former Wyoming senator Alan K. Simpson. Simpson, the group’s honorary chairman, spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Arlene Getz this week about gay Republicans, the religious right and the 2004 election. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Why did you join the Republican Unity Coalition? Allan K. Simpson: I don’t think there’s anyone in America [who] doesn’t have someone close to them who’s part of the gay or lesbian population. I met the head of the Log Cabin Republicans [a gay GOP group] almost 10 years ago when I was working on immigration [legislation.] They had the same conflicts about abortion, about taxes—there really wasn’t much discussion about the gay-lesbian issue. At the end of it I said I had no idea of the kind of anguish that they must go through, none. I said that if I can help turn that tide then I’d be glad to do so … Then there’s my deep regard and affection for Dick and Lynne Cheney and [their gay daughter] Mary, whom I watched grow up.
One of the RUC’s goals is to sideline the influence of religious conservatives in the GOP. RUC honorary chairman Alan K. Simpson We don’t have any concept of sidelining anyone. That’s not our intent at all.
What about sidelining their agenda? I’m not into anything but the awareness of tolerance and the importance of an honest appraisal of acceptance. It matters not to me what they do. I don’t do those things to sideline anybody. We’re not asking for anything special [for gays]—just openness, honesty, tolerance. Even the word acceptance may not be good, because you don’t have to accept anybody in life.
This doesn’t sound like a traditional Republican speaking. That’s a stereotype. What’s always curious to me is how liberal-progressive people are always babbling about how they never stereotype. Well, that’s B.S. I don’t know what the hell I am—conservative, liberal? You figure it out.
How much is the religious right shaping the GOP’s agenda? I would see people at rallies as I campaigned for [the first President] Bush and [Bob] Dole and the second Bush and I would say: “You apparently are part of the Christian right. What do you believe that’s so frightening to the rest of us?” They said: “We believe that the educational system is a failure. We think the entertainment industry is debasing America. We feel that the soaps in the afternoons consist of the horniest people that have ever [roamed] the earth scratching at every orifice. And we believe in God.” What’s wrong with those people? What is the evil of the “Christian right?” They believe in God and they believe in family values. What is so horrific about that?
I’m not judging their values, just asking the extent to which they are influencing the party? It is always brought up in a negative way. That’s the way it is.
What about their disapproval of gays? I’m not comfortable with some of their views, especially with regard to homosexuality. My view doesn’t match theirs on abortion. But I think the Republicans are getting smart enough now to realize [the value of] what Reagan said—give me a guy who’s with me 70 percent of the time instead of some jerk who’s against me 100 percent of the time. The 100 percenters in our party are less, thank heavens, because the hundred percenters are the guys you want to stay away from. They’re people who seethe. Those are the people who didn’t vote [for George Bush in 1992] and gave us Bill Clinton. And if there’s ever a group of people who think of the anti-Christ as Bill Clinton, then it’s the archconservative right-wing people you and I describe.
Are you saying that because they’ll back George W. Bush in 2004 whatever happens, he can start reaching out to moderates like those represented by the RUC. I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that I think there’s less chance this time of a flight of those people from the presidential race on the basis of their “agenda.” They know that George W. Bush is listening to them.
Is the GOP’s big tent getting smaller? I don’t think so. If you want to go and look at the big tent shrinking, go and look at the Democrats. The fabric is unraveling at the edge of their tent because if they nominate Howard Dean, they can kiss half the Congress goodbye.
Can a group like the RUC fit into a Republican Party dominated by Karl Rove? They are fitting within it, because in it are people Karl Rove is going to count on to help George W. Bush get re-elected—like Jerry Ford and Mary Cheney and [former congressman] Michael Huffington.
So there are no tensions between those in the RUC and those on the right? I do not see that, because when they surface, they’re not getting the acceptance that they have before. Ten years ago, after a decision like this [the Texas sodomy case] in the court, airwaves would have been filled with the horror of the destruction of the family. Now, sure it’s out there. But not in any way like it would have been 10 years ago.
Yet less than three months ago, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum caused an uproar by likening homosexual activity to bigamy and incest. I thought [those comments] were sad. I know Rick and I respect him, but I think that view was a little bit bizarre.
(Excerpt) Read more at stacks.msnbc.com ...
And Pro-Christ/Pro-life Born Again Christians.
"It should be a non-issue. As long as they understand that "rights" that are based on one's behavior is counter to the conservative platform."
How can behavior that is COUNTER to a conervative be a "non-issue"? You make absolutely no sense and your logic desperately needs help.
Well, how tolerant of you... Good riddance, see ya! You can join the Nazi party, they don't allow homosexuals.
By the way, there is no litmus test to joining the party, they are already here. So I guess you'll be leaving now, won't you?
Bingo...
No!
Allan K. Simpson: I don’t think there’s anyone in America [who] doesn’t have someone close to them who’s part of the gay or lesbian population.
Pure unadulterated crapola. Just because he looks in the mirror and either sees a perv, or is surrounded with them (I neither know nor care) he thinks everyone else in the world is just like him and his (no doubt) east coast elite friends.
What about sidelining their agenda? I’m not into anything but the awareness of tolerance and the importance of an honest appraisal of acceptance
Why should Republicans accept sodomy and those who practice it? Why is this idiot a Republican anyway?
It matters not to me what they do.
This is exactly the problem. Homosexuals and their promoters want everyone to NOT LOOK at the elephant in the room. There is only ONE THING that makes a "homosexual" any different from anyone else, and that is their unhealthy, unnatural, destructive and immoral sexual practices. Why is that topic off-limits?
We’re not asking for anything special [for gays]—just openness, honesty, tolerance.
Double-speak. If you take off the table as a relevant topic what homosexuals do, then it turns into the pretense that they are a legitimate minority such as an ethnic or racial minority, which is an insult to real minorities.
Now I'll read the rest of the article and lucky I don't want to eat dinner anyway; I'm on a diet.
Because the main-steam media is in the (back) pocket of the homosexual activists and their buddies.
And some conservatives (too many) have been frightened into silence, or even believing the propaganda of the homo-activists.
Here we go again. Please read "The Pink Swastika" (www.defendthefamily.com) or "The Hidden Hitler" (amazon, maybe elsewhere) and find out about the history and philosophy of the Nazis. Many of the Nazis were flagrant homosexuals and their philosophy was based on a greco-homo-erotic militaristic nationalist "might makes right" Neitzche-esque hodge-podge. Inform yourself, it'll feel good and make you look smarter.
Even the Nazi party in the US has primarily had homosexual leadership!
Sigh. I guess a lot of people just don't take the time to read up. History shows that among the Nazi elite, as well as SA members especially, there were many, many homosexuals. Their whole philosophy was based on an ultra-masculine militaristic homo-erotic cultish crap. This is undeniably true. Homosexuals have been busy for the last 25 years revising history to suit their plea for "minority" status. Homosexuals were not sent en masse to the camps, many of the capos and camp commanders were homosexuals and sadists who raped and sexually tortured prisoners. The homosexuals who were sent were the "femme" type who were scorned by the ultra macho Nazis.
Why don't you read the books I mentioned? Inform yourself.
It still doesnt change the fact that your intolerance is a liability to the party.
First of all, if homosexuals want to vote Republican, great. The more the better. That is completely different than the Republican party making the "gay" agenda part of their platform. The Democrats already are the patrons of the homosexual agenda, we're supposed to have a two-party system.
Political alignment should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.
Homosexual activists have made their sex life a powerful political issue. And I'm supposed to grin and swallow it?
Political alignment should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.
Homosexual activists have made their sex life a powerful political issue. And I'm supposed to grin and swallow it? <<<<<
That's the way it's supposed to look. So much for my proofreading!
I do. What IS in a persons heart is REFLECTED DIRECTLY in their behavior. I don't find homosexual to be RIGHT in their behavior (or heart for that matter) and certainly NOT conservative. Their behavior is immoral. I see you ONLY look at ANYTHING but morality. In other words, you revel in being relative. I don't.
"I don't see how anyone's sexual orientation runs counter to any of these points of conservatism. But, since you so strongly believe that it does, I wonder what other personal behavior you find unwelcome in our party..."
I already stated what I thought of your relative stance on on ever lowering social mores. Other behavior? Why get into it if you can't comprehend how homosexuality is NOT conservative or moral? That one should be obvious to any thinking person.
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.