Posted on 08/30/2010 5:21:25 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
When former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman publicly acknowledged his homosexuality last week, the revelation was news because of his leadership role in a political party not known for its affirmation of gay-rights issues.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, who broke the story, called Mehlman the "most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay." Aside from chairing the RNC, Mehlman also managed the successful 2004 reelection campaign of President George W. Bush, which used the issue of state bans on same-sex marriage to draw conservative voters to the polls.
As a prominent member of the GOP, Mehlman has contributed to Republican candidates and political action committees, more commonly known as PACs. In this election cycle, Mehlman has given $45,000 in political contributions. Top recipients include the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Eric Cantor's leadership PAC, the Every Republican is Crucial PAC.
Records also show that Mehlman contributed $1,900 on April 27, 2009, to Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who famously changed parties the next day, from Republican to Democrat. Shortly thereafter, Mehlman received a refund from the campaign.
All other recipients of his money have been Republicans, and they represent a wide range of views on gay rights. Mehlman has given $2,400 each to Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt and Utah Sen. Bob Bennett , both of whom have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. But Mehlman has also contributed to candidates who have a more liberal view on the topic, such as Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who has defended his state's legalization of same-sex marriage as "settled law." [See which industries have contributed to Scott Brown.]
Mehlman's self-outing has drawn increased attention to the political activism of gay and lesbian Republicans at a time when the Democratic Party is far more often associated with backing gay rights. The Log Cabin Republicans, a PAC that has since the late 1970s promoted "a more inclusive Republican Party for gay and lesbian Americans," has given financial support to several congressional candidates. [See who receives the most money from Republican/Conservative groups.]
Topping the list is New York State Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, who received $3,000 from the Log Cabin Republicans in late 2009 for the special election for New York's 23rd District House seat. Scozzafava withdrew just days before the election, throwing her support to Democrat Bill Owens, who won the seat in a tight race against Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Scozzafava is a Republican known for her liberal views, including support of same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
Other top recipients include Rep. Mary Bono Mack, who is fighting off a challenge from openly gay Democrat Steven Pougnet, the mayor of Palm Springs, in California's 45th District. Bono Mack's record on same-sex issues is controversial among advocates of same-sex rights. She drew fire in May, when she voted against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the law that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military. Louisiana Republican Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, one of Democrats' main targets in House races this November, has received $1,500 from the Log Cabin Republicans. Cao was one of the five Republicans to vote for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Or does "inclusion" mean pandering to a group who has self identified based upon their sexual proclivities?
Happy people are still included. What’s the problem?
yitbos
homosexuals care about one thing and one thing only
the way they get off, now saying they want in the republican party is a trojan horse they only care about splitting republicans with the usual crap of”well I know one and he is nice “ crap and then they will push their agenda.
Sick to death of hearing them say they are conservative and it is just like the log cabins who were busted . Even some on here were fooled by the log cabins but now they’re busted for being Dem voters they have formed their new group .
BTW I was being sarc before someone thinks I am being serious with my other comment
“What does ‘inclusion’ mean? “
It means they want a rubber stamp endorsement of their lifestyle. Notice that homosexuals have all the same rights as everyone else. But what they are really pursuing in their agenda is more visibility and indoctrination. They want to ‘openly’ practice their lifestyle in the armed forces and ‘openly’ sanctify their unholy unions in our churches. These groups like GOProud, which form their membership around a common bedroom predilection, aren’t interested in politics as much as propaganda.
I think there is a place for gays and lesbians in the republican party as long as they realize that many conservatives, although they may find homosexuality in general objectionable and unnatural, that they would not be against civil unions for gays and lesbians, just do not call it marriage.
Ahhm, does one have to be gay to have rights under God?
“I’m starting to wonder if we should just quit caring on this issue.”
You left out the completely normal practice of genital self-mutilationism and the wonderful world of cross dressing, the BT in LGBT. And the /sarc tag. Heh heh.
Other than all of that, I agree. Why not let all hell break loose? Let’s all us conservatives get on the Sodomy and Gonorrhea train. Uh ... who’s first?
The perverts already a party.. The democrat party.
I agree. Well said.
I’m a firm believe of “Don’t tell, I’m not asking”
Along with the few outed gays I know I pretty sure I know some closeted gays but I really don’t want to know for sure so don’t tell me.
We’ll all get along a lot better that way...I really, really, really do not want to know.
Vote conservative? You are cool in my book, conservatively....
The problem is the conservative platform. Favoring homosexual marriages by the GOP would cause a desertion of the Christian base. When that happens, the GOP has no chance. Ever. Again.
A 3rd Party (Tea?) would have to fill the vacuum. And that is not in the conservative interest.
Besides, God has spoken against homosexuality, and He defined marriage. They don’t go together. Let them have their “civil unions” if it makes them feel good, but not “marriage”.
“not be against civil unions for gays and lesbians, just do not call it marriage.”
What exactly is the difference? Isn’t Hussein Obama for so-called ‘civil unions’ that equal marriage? The whole thing seems like a snow job to me. Either way, they want some extremely rare sexual practice to be legally recognized and protected. That is insane.
Who is excluding gays?
Homosexuals are welcome within the Republican party so long as they welcome the party’s platform, just like with any political party. But if they want the GOP to adopt some other party’s platform, they would get a lot further just joining that other party instead.
It’s just like any relationship. If you want the person you’re with to be more like someone else, then maybe you are better off being with the person you’d like them to be more like.
I couldn’t care less if they are homosexual.
I am no more interested in discussing their sex anymore than I am in hearing about the exploits of a heterosexual.
Keep it to yourself.
The only thing of importance is the individual and their rights.
I am not interested in collective segmented rights either.
You say you are gay? Great! Nice to meet you and your partner.
Let’s work on what’s best for the individual and America.
Obama votes present on this issue because if he came out on one side or the other, it would immediately alienate a voting bloc.
This is one of the few issues Obama is pragmatic about but his pragmatism is limited to political expediency.
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.