Skip to comments.The G.O.P.'s Gay Trajectory
Posted on 06/09/2012 9:24:53 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
But the progress within Republican ranks has also been pivotal, not to mention fascinating. And a compelling character in that subplot just added a new twist to the narrative, one that suggests the rapidly changing political dynamics of this issue and its potential import to a party dogged by an image of being culturally out of touch.
That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romneys presidential campaign.
He steadfastly supports conservative candidates. He also steadfastly supports gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular. Along with a few other leading Wall Street financiers, he contributed and helped drum up the majority of the money more than $1 million that fueled the campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.
He has given nearly $10 million of his own money to gay-rights initiatives, including the same-sex marriage efforts not only in New York but also in New Hampshire and New Jersey. And that figure doesnt include his assistance in tapping a broad network of donors for individual candidates. He was pivotal in rounding up about $250,000 apiece for the Republican state senators in New York whose votes for same-sex marriage provided its margin of victory in the Legislature.
Now, Singer says, hes providing $1 million to start a new super PAC with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Just another example of why the GOPe is the most dangerous threat to America that exists.
If someone wants to emphasize one more than the other, that may be a viable political strategy -- but you cannot throw one out and think that you are retaining the other.
Loose morality ends up causing social deterioration -- what the "solution"? -- Big Government to the rescue!
Profligate spending causes social corruption -- there's billions of dollars floating around! -- get some! Lie! Cheat! Steal! It's free money!
Homosexuals are part of the social problem. They should not be seen as an acceptable lifestyle choice. These are people with a problem. They are mentally ill. A political party which embraces that illness (hey! there's money here!) is a political party which is working toward the destruction of society.
Party that’s “...culturally out of touch....”?
Has gay marriage ever won a popular vote?
Has illegal immigration ever won a popular vote?
Which party feels that our public schools are sewers headed by bottom of the barrel SAT losers?
Which party has enough intelligence to know two faked birth certificates when they see them?
Which party thinks a female with executive leadership experience might be a better leader than than a fake everything with no real job in his resume - ever?
Perhaps the NYT maroons had best look in a mirror.
They’ll have plenty of time to do that following the demise of that fishwrap rag.
The price is special government protection for gays and preference for corporations complying government mandated to gay "rights" (read: preference) in employment and promotion.
Financially, crony capitalistic subsidies and punishment of competitors.
Mitt quote: ...gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way...
Homosexuals are part of the social problem. They should not be seen as an acceptable lifestyle choice. These are people with a problem. They are mentally ill. A political party which embraces that illness (hey! there’s money here!) is a political party which is working toward the destruction of society.
Your entire post is well said! Thank you.
Why do you think it would drive them out? Romney is the father of gay marriage, put homosexual activists lawyers on courts in Massachusetts, sought to discriminate against the Boy Scouts as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics and is taking millions from Singer. Yet, religious conservatives are still lining up to vote for him.
Embarrassing friends. Is Singer gay himself?
Let’s not forget, gays and gay militants (the bloc) have no children, so they have disposable income as well as money-raising-attention time, in amounts that those who raise children to be productive members of society just don’t have.
Ya think? ;-)
Ya think? ;-)
“Yet, religious conservatives are still lining up to vote for him.”
Not this one!
It’s fine to go after the conservative gay vote, those who aren’t pushing an agenda, and vote conservative because it is the best thing for the country’s and their future. For that, I fail to see the significance of blocking conservative gays off into their own demographic. That goes for any other special group of conservatives, blacks, Hispanics, truck drivers, Christians, and so on. When the Republican Party spends money and time building coalitions of special groups instead of standing for conservative principles, it becomes indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. I know there are wealthy gays and wealthy members of other special groups who bring a significant amount of campaign money to the table, and I see nothing wrong with that, so long as they aren’t paying for the implementation of agendas that are at war with conservative principles, like the gay agenda.
I’m glad that the “Fudge Packer Times” is printing the names of the sodamites responsable for the destruction of society. I will remember this Paul E. Singer. By all means, let the queers all come out in the open. The day will come when they will wish they had kept it to themselves.
Even homosexuals came from the union of male and female. Once the sanctity of male/female marriage has been compromised its societal importance will gradually be rendered moot. Both sides of an equation must balance. If they don’t it’s no longer an equation. This will transfer to a wide range of other social ills that will render the United States non-unique and subsequently disaffectual in the world. Its armed forces - even if they can then be funded will be sufficiently diluted by homosexuality and political correctness to be able to take and hold the field.
We are on an extremely dangerous road whose logical conclusion is a dead end.
God help us.