BILL SIMON'S GAY AGENDA

Simon Vows to Promote Statewide Gay Pride Day and Award Rights of Marriage to Gays and Other Cohabitants

Sacramento - In a shocking announcement, gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon has committed to support several components of the homosexual agenda. As published today in the San Francisco Chronicle, Simon submitted answers to a questionnaire from the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans of California. In his answers, Simon said that if elected governor, he would proclaim a statewide Gay Pride Day, empower homosexuals in the Republican Party and award additional rights of marriage to "domestic partners" and other unmarried cohabitants. The Republican candidate also said he would not repeal or modify laws signed by Governor Gray Davis to facilitate adoption of children by homosexual couples. Simon spoke about his domestic-partners plan yesterday on KGO Radio in San Francisco.

"This is such a shock," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization. "Why has Bill Simon chosen this path? We already knew Gray Davis' record of undermining marriage and promoting the transsexual, bisexual and homosexual agenda against average families. We never would have believed that Bill Simon would sell out on this key family-values issue. But it's true."

Simon's new-found support for "domestic partnerships" and "adding rights" of marriage for unmarried couples is a contradiction of his Marriage Protection Pledge. Signed with his own hand on February 6, 2002, Simon said he would "refuse to support 'domestic partnerships,' 'civil unions,' or any kind of relationship that compares itself to the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman."

"Gray Davis has shown himself to be corrupt on family values, and now Simon has shown himself to be untrustworthy on some of the same vital issues," said Thomasson. "Bill Simon has put pro-family voters in a very difficult position. It's very sad that voters are left with two candidates for governor, both of whom would undermine marriage and promote the gay agenda."

In Simon's questionnaire that he submitted to the Log Cabin Republicans of California, he said as Governor he would:

Declare a statewide Gay Pride Day: "In June 2003 I will sign a proclamation declaring Gay Pride Day."

Support "domestic partnerships" and award more rights of marriage to unmarried cohabitants: "I am supportive of the concept of a domestic partnership law...I believe that any two people who fit the qualifications of the law should be able to have their relationship recognized by the state...I would not support undoing any of the rights that currently are available under the law, but I believe those rights should be extended to others as well. In addition, I would be open about adding rights and responsibilities as would be appropriate and justified...I do believe that human beings enter into relationships with other human beings and that some of those relationships are deserving of recognition...in order to allow two individuals who have established a strong caring relationship to more fully function within that relationship."

Empower homosexual activists within the California Republican Party: "I support the continued recognition and involvement of gay Republicans in state party activities...I would back a state party charter for the Log Cabin (Republicans) of California."

Simon's new-found gay agenda is especially surprising given the history of another statewide Republican candidate who signed a pledge to support the gay agenda four years ago. Nine days before he lost to Barbara Boxer in the 1998 U.S. Senate race, Matt Fong signed a pledge to support much of the agenda of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans. Fong's campaign consultant, Sal Russo, is also the main consultant for Bill Simon.

Campaign for California Families has tracked how the Governor and individual legislators have voted on the protection of marriage. While Bill Simon has signed the Marriage Protection Pledge -- and broken his pledge -- Governor Gray Davis has refused to pledge to protect marriage. This isn't surprising given Davis' record. Over the last three years, Governor Davis has signed into law major pieces of legislation that undermine marriage. This year, Davis promised gay activists that he would try to bring "civil unions" (Vermont-style homosexual marriage) to California.

In 1999, Davis signed AB 26, which established a statewide "domestic partners" registry and required taxpayers to fund marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual partners of state employees.

In 2001, Davis signed AB 25, which awarded over a dozen rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners."

In 2002, Davis signed two bills, AB 1330 and AB 1684, which awarded additional marriage and family rights to a segment of state employees' "domestic partners." In addition, the Governor has established a special task force to review how to enact a "civil union" law to bring Vermont-style homosexual marriage to California.

CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES (CCF) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots lobbying organization serving families in this state and across America. Sign up today for CCF's free email updates. Your partnership empowers CCF to work to restore family-friendly values to government and society. Please join with us by sending a gift of any size to:

Campaign for California Families Fighting to Restore Family-Friendly Values P.O. Box 782, Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 443-1410 www.savecalifornia.com

One hundred percent of CCF's resources can be used to boldly influence government on your family's behalf, therefore gifts are not tax deductible.

Good question. I think Sal Russo convinced them that veering to the left and running as a cultural liberal was the only way he could run even with Gray Davis. Of course Russo is the guy who convinced RINO Matt Fong four years ago to sign the Log Cabin Republicans extreme pro gay rights agenda and no one was surprised by the results in November. Simon isn't going to cut it as a cultural liberal and he will lose by a landslide. And in the face of a Rat governor with a huge list of negatives who is widely disliked even in his own party. But now that Simon has cut the floor from underneath his base and burned them, there's not much reason for them to feel motivated about getting him elected. I expect his campaign to wither and die on the vine and he will get even fewer votes as a reward for backing an anti-family agenda than Fong did in 1998.

California family code section 300 defines a marriage as a contract. However, we're not even discussing that, but a partnership. Partnerships, either business or otherwise, are also contracts.

Free will is brought in because the foundation of contract law in the common law is predicated, as far as possible, on not limiting the ability of two people so inclined from entering into legally enforceable promises.

My hunch is this confirms that the 'crucial internal poll' taken after the trial verdict must have came back with some pretty bad news. The swing voters must have really been turned off, hence the high-risk gamble to alienate the base and go heavy moderate. To me this is a desperation move, but it might work. He's gambling that the dissatisfied clueless/soccer mom/bacchanal middle will take a socially liberal economic conservative over a bumbling Davis in enough numbers to override the social conservative sit-at-home. A reverse-Bloomberg strategy.

I smell Rove. Take a candidate who has bumbled himself into a corner, and run a libertine experiment as an election trial balloon. If it succeeds, could be a future model for wins in the Porn Belt. If it fails, well he was likely to lose anyway. Not that I agree with the strategy, but it is one scenario.

Wow, what a choice. Take the gamble of a lost battle in the culture war, while gaining a position of power to perhaps ultimately win the war. Cede ground now, while maneuvering for future battles. VERY risky, could backfire and lead to the ultimate loss. But a libertine CA GOP would at least help in the Senate and House.

OTOH, stay at home, and watch socialism further entrench and solidify. Perhaps a second Davis term implodes. But at what cost? Send the message that Bloombergs are the future? Risk the formation of a new Conservative party and the Naderization of the right?

Tinfoil silver lining theory: May hasten the migration of social conservatives to Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, shoring up conservatism in these marginal swing states. If California is beyond retaking anytime soon, perhaps a write-off and recapturing of the remaining West could help to mitigate? Not that I believe that, but it is an interesting theory.

#1 - Prop 22 passed by 60+% of the voters. Why is Simon pandering to a minority, liberal, special interest group at the risk of alienating his base? His new 'friends' won't be voting for him.

#2 - Two months before the election is not the time to try and sell conservatives on the virtue of gay partnerships. The sentiment on this issue has already been conveyed by the above Prop, keeping in mind that the 60+% is composed of moderates, independents, and probably liberals. Why is the will of the majority consistently being subverted by Democrats and Republicans alike?

#3 - Most of us DO NOT CARE who people have sex with (regardless of our personal religious views). We do care however when these people demand special treatment because of it. Beyond civil rights, gay issues should not be issues at all. Why are these people entitled to 'Gay Pride Day' and why should the rest of us be forced to endure it?

well, as I am not a homosexual, my right isn't. (on re-reading, it includes unmarried hetereosexual couples as well, but should I use myself I'm positive that someone else will miss this little disclaimer)

So let's assume that we have "Sam San Francisco" and "Will West Hollywood" who wish to form a joint living contract under state law. The entire argument for CCF is that they should not be allowed to do so (i.e. have their right to contract denied) on the grounds that they are a danger. I ask where the danger is.

The reason I ask has several parts. First, I ascribe to a cranky sort of conservatism that is distrustful of ANY sort of reason to allow the government to interfere with how people wish to live or act without great cause. As such, I want to hear why we the people should empower government to act to deny people these rights.

Second, there is a very big slope here. Right now it's "homosexuality is immoral." There are lots and lots of other things that are considered immoral in the Bible that I don't ascribe to. If any Freepers out there like bacon or hug their wives while they're having a period, they're violating those morals as well. Where will it end? Where should it end? These are things I want to hear a reason for before I join on any bandwagon in favor or against anything.

Third, while I do not begrudge anyone to vote their conscience (except in cases of willful malice a la Barbara Lee), asking me to join in voting for that same cause will require convincing me. As far as that goes, I find religious arguments utterly non-persuasive, as I'm not a big fan of conversion at swordpoint (full disclosure: I am Catholic, and Catholics are, along with Muslims, the world leaders of conversion at swordpoint. Furthermore, the Church forbids gay marriage, along with abortion and women priests. The state must not compel the Catholic church, or any other, to change any of these positions for the same reason I don't believe it should be enforcing them in it's own ends).

The one thing a successful candidate NEVER does is to alienate the base of his party. Bill Simon did best when he ran in the primary as the "conservative candidate." In the general election he thinks veering all the way to the cultural left will persuade people who'd never vote for him in a million years to vote for him oh because he's not really a committed conservative and all that talk of being one was just foderol to fool the party base in accepting him as one. In reality its a desperate move that will backfire and end up with Simon being scorned by both the left and deserted by the base. The left already has Davis and the right who now has no one to vote for will simply stay at home on election day. Sure the RINOs will try to use Simon's election defeat as evidence the party needs to go left but the truth is Simon is going to lose not because he ran as a true conservative but because he looked like a "me too" Gray Davis cultural liberal clone.

Wonder if this is a geographic triangulation and recruitment strategy. View it in a state's right perspective, the GOP goes to a big tent coalition of independent agents, and in theory Simon's stance is representative of the majority of CA voters. So bring them into the GOP by not threatening their emotional hot button issues, and siphon off a large portion of the Democrat swing vote by differing with the Dems only on their weakest issues. Build a comfort level and trust with these voters at the state level, and then gradually move them towards core conservatism in these areas. The south will stay culturally conservative, but CA is allowed its own version of the GOP tailored to its local culture. Kinda like predatory pricing, gain market dominance, squeeze out competitors, then gradually balance out fares to a sustainable level.

I disagree with such a strategy, but am wondering out loud about its possible existance. Given the precarious nature of the political balance, I could see the temptation of moving in such a direction. And in theory it fits better with limited-control conservatism. But as someone who believes that our most important division is the culture wars, I am very concerned about the risks of such a strategy.

Randy Thomasson is a cipher and a crank and he is reporting the facts here way out of context. Bill Simon is opposed to same sex marriage and always has been.

This guy is a one-man shop and lives for microphones and TV cameras -- unfortunately for him and for the rest of us he only gets attention when he is slamming Republicans. The press LOVE that, so they give him all the air time he wants.

Bill Simon is prolife, profamily, progun, anti tax, and is the conservative he has always been. Bill Simon is far more conservative than Pete Wilson ever was.

Let's focus here and remember what we are in it for folks.

Perhaps a second Davis term implodes. But at what cost?

We'll be bankrupt within a year or two, hopefully Davis will be in prison, then we'll be stuck with.......... Bustamante......who will complete our annexation to Mexico as 'El Norte'. Did he ever get around to completing his Bachelor's degree?

Risk the formation of a new Conservative party

We may have no choice. Maybe after the complete implosion at the hands of the Dems something good may come out of it.

Exactly the point I made on another thread. Its not Simon's advocacy of securing equal rights for gays people have a problem with its his securing special treatment for them that turns them off. If he said gays should have the right to live together and their private life was none of the government's business no one would really feel let down - since after all we Californians are a pretty tolerant bunch. Where Simon erred was to pledge the state government would use its powers to confer public recognition on homosexuals just as in for example a Gay Pride Day. It left a lot of base with the impression that not only is Simon walking away from traditional values, he's bent on repeating Dickie Pooh's mistake in the primary of forcing a set of cultural liberal values upon them that they've rightly rejected. If you want to put your campaign in full meltdown mode, embracing a cultural liberal agenda is a pretty good way to get it done.

Maybe? I'm angry now, but I may wake up in the morning with my pragmatist's hat on and see this action on Simon's part as way to get elected, although right now it looks like a net loss in many ways. I really question the man's principles at this point. Maybe in a midyear election like this, only certain groups, like the gays, are lock-ins to vote. Certainly Christians are notoriously poor at turning out to vote. Maybe there is a net gain here? My question- Does the gain in votes make up for the loss in principles? I really didn't think he needed to do this after Grey has fallen on his sword. Simon's people must have panicked. This is a desperation move.

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.