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.