Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gays and the GOP
NEWS WEEK ^ | July 3, 2001 | Arlene Getz

Posted on 09/01/2003 11:22:11 AM PDT by GrandMoM

Is there room for gays inside the Republicans' Big Tent?

Gays and the GOP

How a Republican group is trying to make sexual orientation a ‘non-issue’ for the party

By Arlene Getz

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

July 3 — Gays have always been more likely to vote Democrat. But as the 2004 White House race shifts into gear—and the issue of same-sex marriage becomes a national talking point—a few Republicans are stepping up their efforts to attract homosexuals into the big tent.

YET WILL GAY voters ever really feel welcome in a GOP that is backed by a legion of conservative Christians? One of the party organizations trying to make that happen is the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC)—a group of gay and straight party members established more than two years ago in a bid to make sexual orientation a “non-issue” among their supporters. A Wedge Is Born: Gay Marriage and 2004

The RUC was one of several groups that filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief arguing that the Texas sodomy law, struck down by the Supreme Court last week, was unconstitutional. Describing itself as less a grass-roots movement than one for “grass tops”—Republicans with long-established and often powerful roles in the GOP—the RUC’s big-name members include former president Gerald Ford and former Wyoming senator Alan K. Simpson. Simpson, the group’s honorary chairman, spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Arlene Getz this week about gay Republicans, the religious right and the 2004 election. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why did you join the Republican Unity Coalition? Allan K. Simpson: I don’t think there’s anyone in America [who] doesn’t have someone close to them who’s part of the gay or lesbian population. I met the head of the Log Cabin Republicans [a gay GOP group] almost 10 years ago when I was working on immigration [legislation.] They had the same conflicts about abortion, about taxes—there really wasn’t much discussion about the gay-lesbian issue. At the end of it I said I had no idea of the kind of anguish that they must go through, none. I said that if I can help turn that tide then I’d be glad to do so … Then there’s my deep regard and affection for Dick and Lynne Cheney and [their gay daughter] Mary, whom I watched grow up.

One of the RUC’s goals is to sideline the influence of religious conservatives in the GOP. RUC honorary chairman Alan K. Simpson We don’t have any concept of sidelining anyone. That’s not our intent at all.

What about sidelining their agenda? I’m not into anything but the awareness of tolerance and the importance of an honest appraisal of acceptance. It matters not to me what they do. I don’t do those things to sideline anybody. We’re not asking for anything special [for gays]—just openness, honesty, tolerance. Even the word acceptance may not be good, because you don’t have to accept anybody in life.

This doesn’t sound like a traditional Republican speaking. That’s a stereotype. What’s always curious to me is how liberal-progressive people are always babbling about how they never stereotype. Well, that’s B.S. I don’t know what the hell I am—conservative, liberal? You figure it out.

How much is the religious right shaping the GOP’s agenda? I would see people at rallies as I campaigned for [the first President] Bush and [Bob] Dole and the second Bush and I would say: “You apparently are part of the Christian right. What do you believe that’s so frightening to the rest of us?” They said: “We believe that the educational system is a failure. We think the entertainment industry is debasing America. We feel that the soaps in the afternoons consist of the horniest people that have ever [roamed] the earth scratching at every orifice. And we believe in God.” What’s wrong with those people? What is the evil of the “Christian right?” They believe in God and they believe in family values. What is so horrific about that?

I’m not judging their values, just asking the extent to which they are influencing the party? It is always brought up in a negative way. That’s the way it is.

What about their disapproval of gays? I’m not comfortable with some of their views, especially with regard to homosexuality. My view doesn’t match theirs on abortion. But I think the Republicans are getting smart enough now to realize [the value of] what Reagan said—give me a guy who’s with me 70 percent of the time instead of some jerk who’s against me 100 percent of the time. The 100 percenters in our party are less, thank heavens, because the hundred percenters are the guys you want to stay away from. They’re people who seethe. Those are the people who didn’t vote [for George Bush in 1992] and gave us Bill Clinton. And if there’s ever a group of people who think of the anti-Christ as Bill Clinton, then it’s the archconservative right-wing people you and I describe.

Are you saying that because they’ll back George W. Bush in 2004 whatever happens, he can start reaching out to moderates like those represented by the RUC. I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that I think there’s less chance this time of a flight of those people from the presidential race on the basis of their “agenda.” They know that George W. Bush is listening to them.

Is the GOP’s big tent getting smaller? I don’t think so. If you want to go and look at the big tent shrinking, go and look at the Democrats. The fabric is unraveling at the edge of their tent because if they nominate Howard Dean, they can kiss half the Congress goodbye.

Can a group like the RUC fit into a Republican Party dominated by Karl Rove? They are fitting within it, because in it are people Karl Rove is going to count on to help George W. Bush get re-elected—like Jerry Ford and Mary Cheney and [former congressman] Michael Huffington.

So there are no tensions between those in the RUC and those on the right? I do not see that, because when they surface, they’re not getting the acceptance that they have before. Ten years ago, after a decision like this [the Texas sodomy case] in the court, airwaves would have been filled with the horror of the destruction of the family. Now, sure it’s out there. But not in any way like it would have been 10 years ago.

Yet less than three months ago, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum caused an uproar by likening homosexual activity to bigamy and incest. I thought [those comments] were sad. I know Rick and I respect him, but I think that view was a little bit bizarre.

(Excerpt) Read more at stacks.msnbc.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush2004; gop; gwb2004; homosexualagenda; lawrencevtexas; prisoners; rinos; ruc
....please read remaining part of the article, I was forced to excerpt and some of most important points were further into the article!!!!!
1 posted on 09/01/2003 11:22:12 AM PDT by GrandMoM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
It should be a non-issue. As long as they understand that "rights" that are based on one's behavior is counter to the conservative platform.
2 posted on 09/01/2003 11:25:14 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM; scripter; *Homosexual Agenda; backhoe; pram; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Bump and ping. An older article, but it's a good one that I haven't seen before. Thanks for posting!

Scripter will be off line occasionally between now and the middle of September. I've agreed to help him out by running his homosexual agenda ping list.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links
Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search
All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.

3 posted on 09/01/2003 11:29:30 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Space for homosexuals? Sure. Space for the homosexual agenda? Not a prayer in Hell.
4 posted on 09/01/2003 11:30:53 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Arafat must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
hey! Plenty of room in the republican party for everyone...
except constitutional conservatives.

Nobody wants those pesky folks around.
5 posted on 09/01/2003 11:38:56 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
I think the bulk of the article told of the different organizations trying to infiltrate the Republican party. The agenda is already affecting the party. For this reason, I am opposed to any "out of the closet" gays participating.
6 posted on 09/01/2003 11:41:22 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Is there room for gays inside the Republicans' Big Tent?

Is there room for Christian Conservatives? A lot of us are beginning to wonder. You can't own EVERY voting bloc. It makes sense not to alienate a PROVEN bloc in pursuit of another hostile one.

7 posted on 09/01/2003 11:44:12 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Well, on the national level, homosexuality should be a non-issue. It simply isn't relevant to federal policy - this is State territory all the way. Let the states decide!
8 posted on 09/01/2003 11:51:37 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Arafat must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
What important points? That Arlene Getz is in the wrong business and would more properly be employed as a defense attorney? That Allen Simpson has gone around the bend after spending so many years at the kennedy School?
This was just sad.
9 posted on 09/01/2003 11:59:16 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
NO!
10 posted on 09/01/2003 11:59:39 AM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
"Allan K. Simpson: I don’t think there’s anyone in America [who] doesn’t have someone close to them who’s part of the gay or lesbian population."

Unless there's some family member who's putting on a really good act, I do not have anyone close to me 'who is part of the gay or lesbian population'. I don't think this 'alternate lifestyle' thing is quite as prevalent as we've been led to believe.
11 posted on 09/01/2003 12:00:36 PM PDT by Maria S ("..I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end" Uday H.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
. Are you saying that because they’ll back George W. Bush in 2004 whatever happens, he can start reaching out to moderates like those represented by the RUC.

I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that I think there’s less chance this time of a flight of those people from the presidential race on the basis of their “agenda.” They know that George W. Bush is listening to them.

12 posted on 09/01/2003 12:02:55 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("What is impossible with men is possible with GOD -Luke 18:27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
The day that the Homosexuals are included is the day I stop voting Republican. That just about sums it up for me!!
13 posted on 09/01/2003 12:19:25 PM PDT by Winston Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
The agenda has spoiled it for all of them. I feel sorry for the ones that are honestly not pushing the agenda, but I must oppose any special rights or privileges for homosexuals. Period. And to tell the truth, they are generally such forked tongue liars that I would have trouble believing one who said he WASN'T pushing the agenda.
14 posted on 09/01/2003 12:25:56 PM PDT by johnb838 (Deconstruct the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maria S
I agree with you on this. I have no homosexual famiy members either. People are exaggerating.
15 posted on 09/01/2003 12:32:00 PM PDT by bluebunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lemondropkid56
pardon, family
16 posted on 09/01/2003 12:32:41 PM PDT by bluebunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
I would have trouble believing one who said he WASN'T pushing the agenda.

....funny thing is, I have never heard or read about any one homosexual or one of their organizations say that the weren't part of the agenda.

17 posted on 09/01/2003 12:33:53 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("What is impossible with men is possible with GOD -Luke 18:27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Thanks for occasionally reposting these years-old articles ... its important to keep them in the news.
18 posted on 09/01/2003 12:37:30 PM PDT by Camber-G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Camber-G
Thanks for occasionally reposting these years-old articles ... its important to keep them in the news. ....I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, or not, but my reason for posting the 2 year article is, that I feel that in that time they ,our government (R&D'S) have become much more accepting of the gay agenda's issues!
19 posted on 09/01/2003 12:45:19 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("What is impossible with men is possible with GOD -Luke 18:27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lemondropkid56
People are exaggerating.

....time to wake up!!
....read post #3

20 posted on 09/01/2003 12:57:23 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("What is impossible with men is possible with GOD -Luke 18:27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
hey! Plenty of room in the republican party for everyone... except constitutional conservatives.

And Pro-Christ/Pro-life Born Again Christians.

21 posted on 09/01/2003 1:09:21 PM PDT by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Good grief, do you ever READ what you write?

"It should be a non-issue. As long as they understand that "rights" that are based on one's behavior is counter to the conservative platform."

How can behavior that is COUNTER to a conervative be a "non-issue"? You make absolutely no sense and your logic desperately needs help.

22 posted on 09/01/2003 1:13:27 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Yippee! </ sarcasm >
23 posted on 09/01/2003 1:19:21 PM PDT by 4mycountry (Everyone has the right to be stupid, liberals abuse the privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I dont know about you, but I dont define "conservatism" by one's personal behavior. To me, a conservative is someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, national sovereignty, a clear separation of powers, limited government, and respect for individual rights.

I don't see how anyone's sexual orientation runs counter to any of these points of conservatism. But, since you so strongly believe that it does, I wonder what other personal behavior you find unwelcome in our party...
24 posted on 09/01/2003 2:14:38 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Winston Smith
The day that the Homosexuals are included is the day I stop voting Republican. That just about sums it up for me!!

Well, how tolerant of you... Good riddance, see ya! You can join the Nazi party, they don't allow homosexuals.

By the way, there is no litmus test to joining the party, they are already here. So I guess you'll be leaving now, won't you?

26 posted on 09/01/2003 2:25:52 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
I have no problem with gay people voting Republican, or being involved in politics. They have as much right as the next person. But they just do it as individuals, not gay advocates. One reason for the negative reaction against gay people in some quarters is that professional gay groups are trying to force themselves and their private behavior on a public that doesn't agree with it. I believe in minding my own business and others doing the same. Busybodies of any ideology need to get a life. A person's private life is exactly that--private. There is no need for me or anyone else to know what these people do behind closed doors. And it is they who are drawing attention to it. If they would stop flaunting their proclivities, most of the negativism towards them would dissipate.
27 posted on 09/01/2003 2:51:23 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Not My Business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Space for homosexuals? Sure. Space for the homosexual agenda? Not a prayer in Hell

Bingo...

28 posted on 09/01/2003 3:06:58 PM PDT by trebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.

29 posted on 09/01/2003 3:24:15 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pram
))))))PING(((((((( to #15
30 posted on 09/01/2003 3:41:24 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("What is impossible with men is possible with GOD -Luke 18:27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Personally, I see no reason a homosexual wouldn't want his/her taxes reduced and his country defended against terrorism. Bush could take 1/4 of the gay vote without pandering.
31 posted on 09/01/2003 4:10:41 PM PDT by .cnI redruM (I was lerned in Pubik Skool!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Is there room for gays inside the Republicans' Big Tent?

No!

32 posted on 09/01/2003 5:24:16 PM PDT by apackof2 (Watch and pray till you see Him coming, no one knows the hour or the day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
I just started reading this article and I am totally nauseated. Here's a few gems:

Allan K. Simpson: I don’t think there’s anyone in America [who] doesn’t have someone close to them who’s part of the gay or lesbian population.

Pure unadulterated crapola. Just because he looks in the mirror and either sees a perv, or is surrounded with them (I neither know nor care) he thinks everyone else in the world is just like him and his (no doubt) east coast elite friends.

What about sidelining their agenda? I’m not into anything but the awareness of tolerance and the importance of an honest appraisal of acceptance

Why should Republicans accept sodomy and those who practice it? Why is this idiot a Republican anyway?

It matters not to me what they do.

This is exactly the problem. Homosexuals and their promoters want everyone to NOT LOOK at the elephant in the room. There is only ONE THING that makes a "homosexual" any different from anyone else, and that is their unhealthy, unnatural, destructive and immoral sexual practices. Why is that topic off-limits?

We’re not asking for anything special [for gays]—just openness, honesty, tolerance.

Double-speak. If you take off the table as a relevant topic what homosexuals do, then it turns into the pretense that they are a legitimate minority such as an ethnic or racial minority, which is an insult to real minorities.

Now I'll read the rest of the article and lucky I don't want to eat dinner anyway; I'm on a diet.

33 posted on 09/01/2003 6:51:28 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Ten years ago, after a decision like this [the Texas sodomy case] in the court, airwaves would have been filled with the horror of the destruction of the family. Now, sure it’s out there. But not in any way like it would have been 10 years ago.

Because the main-steam media is in the (back) pocket of the homosexual activists and their buddies.

And some conservatives (too many) have been frightened into silence, or even believing the propaganda of the homo-activists.

34 posted on 09/01/2003 6:55:33 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
You can join the Nazi party, they don't allow homosexuals

Here we go again. Please read "The Pink Swastika" (www.defendthefamily.com) or "The Hidden Hitler" (amazon, maybe elsewhere) and find out about the history and philosophy of the Nazis. Many of the Nazis were flagrant homosexuals and their philosophy was based on a greco-homo-erotic militaristic nationalist "might makes right" Neitzche-esque hodge-podge. Inform yourself, it'll feel good and make you look smarter.

Even the Nazi party in the US has primarily had homosexual leadership!

35 posted on 09/01/2003 7:02:25 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pram
You are actually going to claim that there were Nazi party members who were "flagrant" homosexuals? As I recall, these people were unwelcome and sent to concentration camps as well.

It still doesnt change the fact that your intolerance is a liability to the party. Political alignment should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

So, again... if you wish to leave, see ya. Go form your own little anti-homosexual party. Good luck ever winning one political seat in this country.
36 posted on 09/01/2003 7:37:27 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
You are actually going to claim that there were Nazi party members who were "flagrant" homosexuals? As I recall, these people were unwelcome and sent to concentration camps as well.

Sigh. I guess a lot of people just don't take the time to read up. History shows that among the Nazi elite, as well as SA members especially, there were many, many homosexuals. Their whole philosophy was based on an ultra-masculine militaristic homo-erotic cultish crap. This is undeniably true. Homosexuals have been busy for the last 25 years revising history to suit their plea for "minority" status. Homosexuals were not sent en masse to the camps, many of the capos and camp commanders were homosexuals and sadists who raped and sexually tortured prisoners. The homosexuals who were sent were the "femme" type who were scorned by the ultra macho Nazis.

Why don't you read the books I mentioned? Inform yourself.

It still doesnt change the fact that your intolerance is a liability to the party.

First of all, if homosexuals want to vote Republican, great. The more the better. That is completely different than the Republican party making the "gay" agenda part of their platform. The Democrats already are the patrons of the homosexual agenda, we're supposed to have a two-party system.

Political alignment should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

Homosexual activists have made their sex life a powerful political issue. And I'm supposed to grin and swallow it?

37 posted on 09/01/2003 8:17:59 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pram
>>>>>First of all, if homosexuals want to vote Republican, great. The more the better. That is completely different than the Republican party making the "gay" agenda part of their platform. The Democrats already are the patrons of the homosexual agenda, we're supposed to have a two-party system.

Political alignment should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

Homosexual activists have made their sex life a powerful political issue. And I'm supposed to grin and swallow it? <<<<<

That's the way it's supposed to look. So much for my proofreading!

38 posted on 09/01/2003 8:21:06 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
"I dont know about you, but I dont define "conservatism" by one's personal behavior. To me, a conservative is someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, national sovereignty, a clear separation of powers, limited government, and respect for individual rights. "

I do. What IS in a persons heart is REFLECTED DIRECTLY in their behavior. I don't find homosexual to be RIGHT in their behavior (or heart for that matter) and certainly NOT conservative. Their behavior is immoral. I see you ONLY look at ANYTHING but morality. In other words, you revel in being relative. I don't.

"I don't see how anyone's sexual orientation runs counter to any of these points of conservatism. But, since you so strongly believe that it does, I wonder what other personal behavior you find unwelcome in our party..."

I already stated what I thought of your relative stance on on ever lowering social mores. Other behavior? Why get into it if you can't comprehend how homosexuality is NOT conservative or moral? That one should be obvious to any thinking person.

39 posted on 09/01/2003 8:28:45 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
I believe there is space for homosexual activitsts in the Republican 'big-tent'.

In fact, they can have my space, I won't be using it any more.

http://www.constitutionparty.com
40 posted on 09/01/2003 8:30:19 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Well actually, The Nazi Party WAS the Homosexual Party. Hetrosexuality was frowned upon in the Third Reich.
41 posted on 09/01/2003 8:37:17 PM PDT by August West
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
I have a problem with ANY group participating as a GROUP instead of as individuals; blacks, Hispanics, gays, Muslims, whatever. America is about INDIVIDUAL rights, not about group rights. Of course, the Judicial System screwed this one up with their "Communities of interest" in redistricting matters.

Hmmmm how would they redistrict to take in gays as a group, aside from SanFran?

42 posted on 09/01/2003 8:46:11 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
The only top-tier Nazi Leader who was not a "homosexual" was Himmler - and possibly Hitler, although he was a homosexualist. Do some reading. You have bought the lie that "gays" were the victims. They weren't. "Gays" were the perpetrators. Don't think it couldn't happen in the U.S. We are well along the path to totalitarianism; each new, counterfeit right is another step along the slippery slope of ever-increasing tolerence - until one day morality and the individual is outlawed.
43 posted on 09/01/2003 8:51:46 PM PDT by August West
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pram
That is completely different than the Republican party making the "gay" agenda part of their platform.

As I had indicated in my original post, I welcome them to the party so long as they realize that "gay rights" are counter to the party philosophy.

44 posted on 09/02/2003 6:11:52 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
BTTT
45 posted on 09/02/2003 6:45:48 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
"No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden Rule into his life conduct." --Theodore Roosevelt

"If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." --G. K. Chesterton

I know this isn't a 10 Commandment thread, but here is evidence from a great American and a great thinker and moralist showing that morality and civiliation are inextricably bound together. Until the last 25 years, no sane person would have ever thought that the homo-activists would ever have achieved what they have now. Same sex acts have always been considered deviant, sick, immoral, harmful, and illegal. There is only ONE reason why anyone thinks differently about it today: the destruction of moral absolutes, helped by Kinsey, Marx and Lenin, and a host of atheists, hedonists and secular humanists, and aided and abetted by shallow religionists of all stripes.

46 posted on 09/02/2003 9:11:09 AM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: pram
Political alignment should have nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

True, but that violates the second law of homosexuality. To wit:

To the mentally healthy person (heterosexual), sex is something they do
To the mentally diseased person ('homosexual'), sex is everything they are

47 posted on 09/02/2003 11:15:37 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
Good post. I agree completely.
48 posted on 09/02/2003 4:55:46 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson