Posted on 10/20/2006 12:22:57 PM PDT by presidio9
They are members of an increasingly exclusive club — a district attorney and a mayor from southern California, a legislator from Minnesota, a handful of others scattered across the country. They are elected officials who are Republican and openly gay.
"People think it's an oxymoron," said the Minnesota state senator, Paul Koering. "How can you be gay and be in the Republican Party?"
Never more than a tiny fraction of GOP politicians, openly gay Republicans are about to disappear from Congress with the retirement of Rep. Jim Kolbe (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, and Koering is the lone openly gay GOP state legislator — out of 7,382 seats nationwide. The Democrats, by contrast, have 56 openly gay legislators and embrace an array of gay-rights causes.
Against that backdrop is the scandal involving Republican Mark Foley. The former Florida congressman who abruptly quit because of sexually explicit messages he sent to male pages, and later acknowledged he is gay. Some conservatives cite the scandal as reason for the GOP to further distance itself from gays; others think that's a long-term losing strategy.
According to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which supports gay candidates, there are about 350 openly gay elected officials nationwide — up from about 50 in 1990. Of those elected on party tickets, 140 are Democrats and 11 are Republicans, the fund said.
Victory Fund president Chuck Wolfe said the ranks of openly gay GOP candidates have dwindled in recent years as religious conservatives have expanded their influence and made opposition to same-sex marriage a high-profile issue in the 2004 election.
Instead of an all-welcoming "big tent," the GOP "is more of a revival tent," Wolfe said. "It has chased out more and more gay Republicans."
Among those determined to stay is Peter Hankwitz, a TV producer and talent manager who is the GOP nominee challenging incumbent Democrat Brad Sherman for a congressional seat in California's San Fernando Valley.
Hankwitz is a heavy underdog, without funding from national GOP committees. Yet state Republican officials have been supportive, even posing for pictures with Hankwitz and Julian Trevino, his domestic partner since 1997.
Hankwitz resents what he calls "single-issue social politics" — such as the ban-gay-marriage campaign — and wishes he could get to Congress to help moderate his party.
"Unfortunately, we're influenced by the people on the extreme right and extreme left," he said.
Southern California already has openly gay Republicans in office — including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin.
Gin says he has no qualms about remaining Republican.
"I believe in the basic tenets — limited government, individual rights, a strong economy and national defense," he said. "It's important to me to provide a more moderate voice."
Likewise, Koering — who opposes abortion and gun control — wants to keep working within the GOP. He recently won a primary over a conservative whose campaign stressed "moral values."
"It would be easy for me to go to the Democrats — they court me on a daily basis," Koering said. "But my home is in the Republican Party. I'm not going to let the people with a radical agenda kick me out."
Nationally, GOP officials have voiced no concern about the scarcity of openly gay officeholders. Tara Wall of the Republican National Committee and Alex Johnson of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee said it wasn't a priority.
"We look for good candidates who believe in our message," said Johnson. "If they happen to be gay, it's their prerogative."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the issue is not a candidate's sexual orientation in and of itself. "It's whether they support pro-family policies," he said.
Democratic politicians generally seek gay support and encourage gay candidacies.
Gay Democrats have won legislative seats even in seemingly inhospitable territory, scoring breakthroughs recently in Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia.
Perkins said the GOP shouldn't worry about losing votes of gays because their numbers are dwarfed by Christian conservatives. He predicted that any GOP presidential hopeful deemed a gay-rights supporter would be denied the 2008 nomination.
The Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition urged the GOP to reject the concept of a "big tent" welcoming gays.
"What happens is not a happy tent like the Barnum and Bailey circus," he said. "You end up with a lot of mush in it."
Sheldon predicted that Republican organizers, because of the Foley scandal, would be more aggressive in asking if prospective candidates are gay.
The president of the largest national gay rights group, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, said the GOP was at a significant crossroads.
"Most Americans believe both parties ought to be open and inclusive," he said. "So you've got the Republican leadership in a quandary: how do you balance that public sentiment ... with the powerful voting bloc of the radical right?"
For nearly 30 years, a group called Log Cabin Republicans has lobbied to make the GOP more open to gays. Its executive vice president, Patrick Sammon, is optimistic.
"Anti-gay Republicans want a narrow agenda that only 25 to 30 percent of Americans actually agree with," Sammon said. "Republican officeholders are shrewd enough to understand that's a losing strategy, that the party risks being on the wrong side of history."
Which is why I prefer to mock bigots rather than argue with them.
I may not be able to change their minds, but hopefully they can amuse me before I grow tired of them.
Clinton was an adulterer and much more too. I remember clearly the "crusade" to impeach him. Generally social conservatives don't care for voting for adulterers either unless they are repentant ones and would have the same attitude towards a repentant homosexual as well.
Adultery and attraction to the same-sex are just indications of much worse problems. As we've witnessed with both Clinton and Foley. Foley wasn't a pedophile as many first claimed but he was certainly unprofessional for mingling his personal life with public life much the same as Clinton did with his intern.
Mocking them doesn't change their minds, either. It's purely an entertainment. It's better to try and understand the forces at work and how they are shaping American culture.
Fer instance, the anti-gay guy folks see themselves as holding back a tide of gay agenda stuff. Yet, most live in places where there is no gay community. All the gay guys have, quite sensibly, moved away to larger cities where they are welcomed.
No disagreement with me there.
But apparently you are missing the point.. We all say "sin ain't sin" on a daily basis.
Looks like the party of "open-mindedness" is going to have to think up another slur (such as "oreo," "coconut," etc.) for gay Republicans. Hmm...what's rainbow-colored on the outside and white on the inside?
The last time a Republican used a racial slur was probably forty years ago. The last time a democrat used one was probably last week.
There isn't any social evolution. Queers were prevalent in ancient Rome and Greece and often sold young boys (ie catamites) to other queers. Homosexuals and the many homophiles on this site never address the 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars spent to service this disgusting behavior, which has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with deviance. I always wonder where the homophiles stand on issues of homopedia, incest, beastiality, necrophilia and the rest. Too many homophiles think the deviants live the lives of Will and Grace. CDC stats suggest otherwise since male queers have about the same lifespan as IV drug users. There is a price to pay for deviant behavior. Just ask the cultures that eat other humans -- ever hear of Kuru or CJD?
I know there are which is why I continue to read/post here. I don't like the one-sidedness and this discussion was going too far which is why I piped up. I am concerned that the trend of the party is letting the far-right take over the party...frindges never work and we can't get a majority with the frindge controlling the party...we saw that with the Democrats from 1994-present and I hope that the other shoe is dropping. There have been a few alarms over the last twelve years, but thankfully, to date, the Ds have let their frindge control the Party more than the Rs have let their frindge control their's.
Only if the "values voters" allow themselves to be used as tools in the Dimorats agenda.
One problem I find with some particularly religious people is that when it comes down to moral issues, they have an unusual fixation on sexual matters. I wish they gave as much effort & attention to other sinful behavior, like gossip or passing along rumors, for example. No doubt those are bad things and probably directly impact more people than the deviant sexual matters impact.
Then again, based on the most religious people I know, if they took a strong stand to wipe out gossip, they would be left with nothing to do.
Do you really think that God can't distinguish between sins? Lying is a sin. Do you think God can't distinguish between a white lie told to hurt someone's feelings, a lie told to a boss to give an employee extra time to finish a project, and a lie told in front of a jury that helps acquit a guilty violent criminal?
If you do, you're just not respecting God very much. After all, the average 8 year old can meaningfully see the difference between those two lies. I hope you can give the creator of the universe at least as much credit.
Being principled, I'm sorry to tell some Freepers, doesn't mean you turn your brain off at the door.
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.