Skip to comments.Daughter Speculates on Ronald Reaganís Gay-Rights Views
Posted on 04/04/2013 7:06:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As Republican politicians wrestle with same-sex marriage, the daughter of a party icon former President Ronald Reagan said in an interview this week that she believes her father would have been puzzled by the political fuss and would have supported marriage for gay people.
Patti Davis, a Los Angeles writer and the onetime rebellious daughter of Reagan and his second wife, Nancy, said in a telephone interview that she never discussed same-sex marriage with the former president, who died in 2004 just as it was emerging as a political issue.
But Ms. Davis, now 60, offered several reasons her father, who would have been 102 this year, would have bucked his party on the issue: his distaste for government intrusion into private lives, his Hollywood acting career and close friendship with a lesbian couple who once cared for Ms. Davis and her younger brother Ron while their parents were on a Hawaiian vacation and slept in the Reagans king-size bed.
I grew up in this era where your parents friends were all called aunt and uncle, Ms. Davis said. And then I had an aunt and an aunt. We saw them on holidays and other times. She added, We never talked about it, but I just understood that they were a couple.
Once when she and her father were watching a Rock Hudson movie, Ms. Davis said, she remarked that the actor looked weird kissing his female co-star. She said her father explained that Mr. Hudson would rather be kissing a man, and conveyed, without using the words homosexual or gay, the idea that some men are born wanting to love another man. Years later, in 1985, Mr. Hudson died of AIDS.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Bullcrap. Reagan was a Christian.
Just like the Global Warming scam. Build a “consensus” and declare it settled. Whoever is coordinating this PR campaign is being very thorough.
I just love pinning down leftists on their “morality”,
which they justify with contemporary “consensus”.
So, any “consensus” of morality in the past was morally correct at the time, right?
Not only that, the term “homosexual marriage”, at that time would have been laughable.
Reagan was a kind man had probably had many homosexual friends since Hollywood is riddled with them, it does not mean in any way he would have supported the abomination union.
You want to know what RR really though ask Micheal Reagan.
Reagan worked in Hollywood for years. He no doubt had many friends who were gay. But whether he believed they should marry or have special right is a different question. Here is Charlton Heston’s views on basically the same question:
 I marched for civil rights with Dr. [Martin Luther King] in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else’s pride, they called me a racist. I’ve worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe. I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite. Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.
Concepts of morality and what is or is not appropriate behavior is subject to the golden rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules. It won’t end with gay marriage. The next target for wealthy homosexual activists will be age of consent laws.
"Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality."These quotes clearly shows that even though Reagan was not hostile to gays - and even opposed banning homosexuals from teaching - he opposed proselytizing homosexuals and gay-"marriage."
"My criticism is that [the gay movement] isnt just asking for civil rights; its asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I."
Ronald Reagan’s only really big mistake was having Ron and Patti. They are totally worthless and, lacking any talent, make their living by putting words in their dead father’s mouth. Disgraceful and totally disgusting.
: the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side;
some men are born wanting to love another man. Years later, in 1985, Mr. Hudson died of AIDS.
Patti is about as clueless of her father as little Ron Ron is. President Reagan was a devout Christian. I highly doubt he’d ever entertain the idea of supporting the homo “marriage” craze.
Well, he adopted Michael... at least he did that one right.
RE: Patti is about as clueless of her father as little Ron Ron is. President Reagan was a devout Christian. I highly doubt hed ever entertain the idea of supporting the homo marriage craze.
Did the NY Times ever bother to ask Michael Reagan’s opinion?
I agree with E Pluribus (above). Reagan would probably have been similar to Goldwater on this matter. Both were kind and tolerant individuals, but at the same time realistic.
The issue of making homosexual relationships official substitutes for actual marriage, is somewhat different. It is a push issue, being used for political purposes by pressure groups and by the D party in order to try to peal off another constituent group. This is why conflict is necessary for them, when the instinct of most of us is to seek solutions, and get along with all sorts of people we meet along lifes way.
If homosexual marriage is approved, there will be temporary jubilation among activists homosexuals, but then they will have to go back to their lives, and will have the same problems as they did before, both as gays as as people. Activists believe that great advances will make everyone happier, but it does not work that way. So who gains by all this? Only the political coalition-makers.
And the country will suffer because there will be confusion in the social life of the people, and lots of legal snags. The overall happiness of everyone will not be advanced.
From the 45 aims of Communists to take over America as listed in the book The Naked Communist:
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Reagan spent enough time in Hollywood where terms like “Confirmed Bachelor” were commonplace in referring to homosexual men. I have no doubt Reagan had friends, even close ones, who he knew were homosexual.
On the other hand, Reagan was apparently concerned and uncomfortable enough about Ron Jr.’s “career” as a ballerina that he made (allegedly) lots of comments along the lines of his son being a red-blooded American boy.
What we’re really seeing here is the Left attempting to appropriate Reagan’s name and legacy to support their current pet cause. They used to tar Reagan as anti-gay, but now they’re attempting to claim him as pro-gay marriage? Seems they’ve tried to have it both ways ...
I was born wanting to eat anything I could and stay 195 pounds. Reality sucks.
Your father loved people but he would NEVER change 5000 YEARS as God gave us MARRIAGE with Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and STeve.
Blame Nancy for those two HORRIBLE kids. Maureen and Michael were raised by Jane, they came out perfectly!!
I do not believe her.
This fits the pattern of homosexualists claiming the dead.
What next John Wayne is a liberal and founded a conservative group in order to support homsexuals?
Miss. Davis has no credibility.
Johnny Mathis was good friends with Nancy.
And Merv Griffin was one of Reagan’s honorary pallbearers.
Whatever his gay rights views were when he was alive are irrelevant. I guarantee you that now he has the RIGHT point of view about gay rights in the place where he is right now.
Jane Wyman’s mothering skills must have been much better, without question. President Reagan must have had so much angst and disappointment with his two youngest. He must have seen that something was amiss with them.
Maureen and Michael were loving and devoted to their dad. Michael did go through an emotional time concerning his adoption, but he has overcome that, matured, and has been a wonderful spokesman for his dad and what he stood for. Maureen was a most loving and supportive daughter. Her premature death was heartbreaking. Both Michael and Maureen honored their father. Patty and Ron, Jr. have dishonored him - shamefully so.
Her entire thesis simply proves how distant she kept herself from her own father, so distant she did not even know her father’s views on some of the most important social/political questions of human history.
It is sad, and ironic that solid conservative Americans, some of who have posted on this very thread, have a greater understanding of the views and belief system of President Reagan, Patty’s father.
As we all know, Patti Davis didn't agree with her father on a lot of things, so this interview is meaningless in so far as it tries to go to the question of what would Ronald Reagan think.
I wonder what made Michael Reagan different from his siblings...
Michael Reagan, the son of the-late President Ronald Reagan, defended his support for traditional marriage on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” Wednesday, but also rescinded his crass remark that same-sex marriage might possibly lead to the acceptability of murder.
Morgan was critical of Reagan’s March 28 op-ed titled, “It’s time for churches to fight back,” in which he suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, there will be a dramatic cultural shift in the country.
Reagan wrote that legalizing same-sex marriage “inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage. There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.”
The conservative author and radio host and son of former President Ronald Reagan, told Morgan he retracts the word murder, because people told him that comment went too far, but he stands behind his message that Christian and Jewish leaders must take a stand and defend traditional marriage en masse in public and on television.
Morgan, who’s Catholic, said he understands the religious argument against same-sex marriage, but added that he believes it’s the same argument that was used to prohibit interracial marriage. He then noted the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in which the court ruled that states’ laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional.
In Reagan’s opinion, the two issues are not comparable. He said the laws that prohibited interracial marriage were wrong, which is why he stands by God’s laws.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST
Maureen was conservative too
well, if the Prophet Samuel couldn’t discipline his sons such that the Israelites had to demand a King when he grew old... I guess getting 50% right with your kids is better.
No she wasn't. I knew her and the people around her. She was a classic GOP moderate.
Oh, the Times just figured Michael is just another firebreathing conservative neanderthal who has yet to fully evolve. It shows how they regard all conservatives. That birdcage liner of a "newspaper" can't go Tango Uniform soon enough!
You can bet your bottom dollar that BMG's rabid opposition to Reagan in 1976 when Reagan challenged Feckless Ford was rooted in Ford's enthusiasm for abortion and Reagan's opposition. On that basis, Ayn Rand endorsed Ford over Reagan in her Ayn Rand Letter. Goldwater, Ayn Rand and Gerald and Betty Ford, as social issue revolutionaries, have no legitimate place in the post-Reagan GOP and conservative movement.
On homosexuality, Reagan opposed the Briggs Amendment in California which would have banned homosexuals from employment as teachers in government schools, noting that if the issue were sexual abuse of minors, no such abuse whether homosexual or heterosexual was acceptable and all such behavior was criminal, and that, in the absence of such criminality, the sexual inclinations of the teacher were irrelevant. That is a loooooooong way from approving homosexuality much less homosexual "marriage."
While governor of California, Reagan signed a somewhat permissive abortion bill and changed his mind completely within a year and even went personally door to door as governor circulating initiative petitions for the attempted repeal of the statute he had signed.
The posthumous attempt to revise Ronaldus Maximus into an amoral or immoral knee-jerk libertinian on moral issues is a disservice to the great man's earned reputation. Note that the sourced article is in the New York Slimes and the source is a largely discredited Patti Reagan who NEVER supported her father politically but now tries to emerge (genetically???) as an expert on his ideas, giving her aid and comfort to his enemies.
She never talked to him about it but she knows what he thought about it... riiiight
“He’s dead... I can pull anything out of my ass and you lamestream presstitutes will print it”, said Ms Davis
Maureen's death was a huge shot to the gut for me.....I thought she was just FABULOUS!! I watched her on CSPAN with other White House children(actually adults) and she just SHONE!!! LBJ's daughter told the most PITIFUL, disgusting stories about her dad, and Maureen told UPLIFTING FUNNY stories. What a loss.
We can’t know what Reagan’s views would be, but Patti’s views would be a slam dunk for that reporter.
Thanks for the ping!
Oh yes we can and WE do! He spoke about marriage and homosexuality.
See the quotes in post-9 and you'll know why Reagan's stated view was censored by the NY Slime and their political dummy Patti.
Memo to Morgan: (1) One can be an atheist and object to gay marriage on social and economic grounds only. (2) You don't understand the meaning of the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was part of a post-Civil War amendment designed specifically to equalize the legal status of newly freed black slaves with that of unenslaved Americans. It was extended in subsequent court rulings to apply to other racial and ethnic groups as well. So the "equal protection" clause applied appropriately in the Loving case (racial differences among persons engaging in the same behavior: heterosexual marriage) but it never has applied to the equalization under law of individuals' behavioral differences. There lies the obvious distinction between the two.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear justiceseeker93!
” At the Supreme Court this week, Ted Olson, the former solicitor general, was one of many to invoke comparisons with Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. But such laws were never more than a localized American perversion of marriage. In almost all other common-law jurisdictions, from the British West Indies to Australia, there was no such prohibition. Indeed, under the Raj, its estimated that one in three British men in the Indian subcontinent took a local wife. Miscegenation is a 19th-century American neologism. When the Supreme Court struck down laws on interracial marriage, it was not embarking on a wild unprecedented experiment but merely restoring the United States to the community of civilized nations within its own legal tradition. Ted Olson is a smart guy, but he sounded like Mary-Kate and Ashleys third twin in his happy-face banalities last week.”