Posted on 07/16/2005 12:12:46 PM PDT by gopgen
Gay-rights opponent Santorum stands by outed aide
BY STEVE GOLDSTEIN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The senior spokesman for Sen. Rick Santorum, R- Pa., Friday confirmed to a web log that he is gay.
According to PageOneQ, an online gay and lesbian publication, director of communications Robert L. Traynham, said that he was an "out gay man who completely supports the senator."
Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership has been an outspoken opponent of homosexual rights and a leading proponent of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Santorum, who was traveling in Pittsburgh, released the following statement:
"Robert Traynham ... is widely respected and admired on Capitol Hill, both among the press corps and among the congressional staff, as a communications professional. Not only is Mr. Traynham an exemplary staffer, but he is also a trusted friend confidente to me and my family. Mr. Traynham is a valued member of my staff and I regret that this effort on behalf of people who oppose me has made him a target of bigotry in their eyes.
"It is entirely unacceptable that my staffs' personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent's campaign. Mr. Traynham continues to have my full support and confidence as well as my prayers as he navigates this rude and mean spirited invasion of his personal life."
Mark Rodgers, chief of staff at the Republican conference, which Santorum chairs, said, "Robert is a tremendous employee and we're all for standing by him." Traynham's homosexuality was not news to the senator or his staff, he added.
In the online interview, Traynham defended his decision to work with the senator. "Sen. Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in. I strongly do support Sen. Santorum.
Asked whether he supported Santorum's views on lesbian and gay issues, Traynham told PageOneQ, "Sen. Santorum is a family man. I have been with him for eight years and I am very proud to be with him."
The two-term senator is up for reelection next year. His expected Democratic opponent is State Treasurer Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Traynham began working for Santorum since 1997 as a press assistant and then deputy press secretary. He was press secretary for the senator's 2000 reelection campaign in Pennsylvania. Just prior to becoming communications director in the Senate office, Traynham served as director of communications for the Senate Republican Conference.
Traynham holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science from Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, where he currently serves on the Council of Trustees.
In supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit gay marriage, Santorum has equated homeland security with the sanctity of traditional marriage. He has referred to gay marriage as "messing with the basic family unit."
During an interview with The Associated Press two years ago about a challenge to the constitutionality of Texas's sodomy law, Santorum said that if the Supreme Court allows gay sex at home (which it ultimately did), "you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
On the marriage issue, Santorum also said: "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
---
© 2005, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
I'm pro life but I think it should not be in the platform. I would like to see Roe overturned, then each state chose whether or not abortion will be allowed in that state. As a political conservative, I want the government out of our lives as much as possible. That's where I differ from the "religious right". Even though I consider myself religious and right. :)
I agree with that statement. I guess I just want to fry all the killers, so I have no fine point there! LOL!
I guess it all depends on what Santorum exactly said. If he said homosexuals should be shunned on all levels, and not hired, he's a hypocrite if he keeps this guy. If he opposed specifics (i.e. homosexual "marriage," Boy Scout invasion, etc.), and this guy champions the opposite position, then again he's a hypocrite.
But reportedly this poor wretch publicly and enthusiastically supports Santorum. So unless he purges all sinners from his staff, I don't see how he can single this guy out. And in his position, I'm not sure what moer he can say.
He could, I suppose, say something like, "The tempest in a teapot that has arisen since my employee's private life was invaded illustrates how poorly the media understand the position of most Americans. While we cannot embrace homosexual practice, and would encourage those bound in it to find freedom from it, we have no intention of persecuting them. It was actually liberals who have persecuted this man. It is when embrace of this immoral behavior drives people try to redefine marriage, to force private institutions to change their membership standards, to force young children to be indoctrinate — that's where we have to stand up and say 'no.' And [if true] my employee has done none of those things."
Okay people, THIS is what I was trying to say all along! You said it so much better than I did Dan.
"Most Catholics don't either so it's a non issue"
Santorum most definately does have a problem with BC and it is as great a sin in Catholic eyes as homosexuality.
I am a bible believing Christian who thinks that if the party is controlled by the far right, Hillary will be elected.
"Washington is far to the left of most of the red states, just as is the MSM"
I agree with this to a point. I bet if you went to the red states, most folks would not care if someone was gay as long as he/she kept it to themselves. This idea of purging gays from the party would be seen for what it is: parnoid and just plain mean.
I hope you don't have any gay children. How sad for them.
You know, that is just so far out there. We do not agree on this at all.
And if my child murdered someone, I would still love him.
The difference is, murder is a choice, not a born trait. I believe you are born with a tendency towards homosexuality. (Except serial killers, maybe a different story. Seems there are signs of that coming out as early as five. Scary stuff.)
I don't think Santorum or any Rep should be doing photo-ops with Kennedy, Clinton and Schumer. And I am quite surprised he voted against more border agents and that makes me annoyed, to say the least.
As to the SS tax, it sounds like half the Rep party thinks this way may be the way to go. Graham, for example. This would be a big mistake.
If you want to dislike Santorum, go ahead. I would just suggest that if Casey wins, we will have one less traditional values conservative (or tax and spend big government repub, if you so wish to label him as such) replaced by a Dem. who will most likely vote more liberal than even Spector.
I don't think Santorum should be thrown to the wolves. He has been a good for our cause overall. Others, like McCain can go pound sand.
But you probably would have spelled "more" and "indoctrinated" correctly.
/c8
Dan
To a point. But they would still feel that the gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, and paranoid, even if they are not "allowed" to say so.
Too many homosexuals insist on flaunting outrageous behaviour "in your face" and then hide behind their own skirts crying "homophobia" when you object to their rudeness. And of course, in DC, the climate is such that any voicing of vernacular opinion (e.g. the "Barney Fag" line) is shouted down as evidence of hate.
Consider the liberal bumper sticker "HATE is not a family value." Nice propaganda line, but logically and factually unsound. Only liberals think family values are a veneer for hate; only liberals HATE family values...which is why they love homosexuality and abortion, as these activities both serve to prevent families.
This idea of purging gays from the party would be seen for what it is: parnoid and just plain mean.
Your syntax and choice of words resemble those of a liberal.
No one says that a political party should actively recruit or solicit members from a group who on the whole holds views antithetical to that party...
Unless of course the goal of the homosexuals is to infiltrate and neutralize the political power base of the social conservatives from within.
Just as liberals have infested and co-opted many of the other institutions in this country.
I repeat, how many evangelical Christians are on Sen. Hillary's broomstick staff?
Please go back and read my post #33.
Cheers!
You summed it up very well. Excellent points. Bravo and all that.
And hillary bakes cookies also, but thanks anyway for describing your stereotype of those "evil" Christians.
Love sometimes means correction,putting limits on a child's options,denying him or her their desires.
As their primary weapon in this struggle the leftist proponents of gay rights and abortion chant the mantra, "Government should stay out of our private lives!" They use that weapon because many on the right have absolutely no defense against it. Indeed, when they hear it, they draw their own swords in agreement and commence to cut the throats of conservatives near them, just as has been done on this thread.
Here's the rub: liberals will see to it that the direct effects of abortion and the gay rights agenda are not confined to the privacy of the one's home, bedroom, or body. These practices will, indeed they already have, come to profoundly affect the lives of other Americans, especially the traditional American family, in powerfully corrosive and damaging ways. We are ALL paying an obscenely high cost for the consequences of being forced by liberals and laissez-faire conservatives to accept these things. At some point that cost may bankrupt us in ways that our most dedicated external enemies never could.
The sentiment of the argument "keep government out of our private lives" is sound, but in its execution with regard to gay rights and abortion, liberals will continue to redefine American culture and laws in their own image, and we will ALL be forced to conform. Laws will be implemented and aggressively enforced by government to guarantee it.
But to your point that Santorum's aide should not be treated in this disgraceful fashion, I fully agree with you. There is no indication that he believes the gay rights agenda should be foisted on America or that he is using his position to undermine Santorum's mainstream views on the issue. He should be treated with dignity and respect and left alone in peace. The Republican Party is enriched and strengthened by the presence and hard work of such men and women.
To suggest otherwise (that is, that he is actually working to advance the gay rights agenda) you'd have to believe the aide was a very clever deep cover "plant" by gay activists, and that they placed him there for the very purpose of creating a controversy that would create a schism between Santorum and a substantial number of his conservative supporters. I don't subscribe to tinfoil theory, so I tend to believe that aide is a man like any other man who struggles with private choices but has the wisdom, good sense, discretion, and self-control to keep them private. The liberals who are cynically manipulating the situation are the villains here, not Santorum.
Not at all. The underlying assumption here is that any gay person MUST be in full support of the Gay Agenda. Not all gays are militant, not all gays want to force their lifestyle choice down everyone else's throat or in everyone else's face. The very fact that Santorum has a staffer who is gay, but supports Santorum's political stance is evidence of that.
This is the stance of the MSM, because they cannot allow the appearance of anything but absolute solidarity of all gays against traditional family values. The fact that not all gays support the so-called gay agenda is the "dirty little secret" that the MSM works hard to hide. You are taking the MSM's talking points as your own.
And no, I am not in favor of the gay agenda. I am not gay, and I disagree on theological and biblical grounds with the whole idea that being gay is inevitible, genetic, or a legitimate "alternative" lifestyle. The bible calls it sin, and so do I.
Don't you read Ann Coulter's books? McCarthy was the GOOD guy.
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.