[NY] State G.O.P. Rebuffs Senator Who Sees Gay Republicans as Disloyal

New York Times ^ | June 9, 2005 | Patrick D. Healy

[sidewalk]

A state senator from Queens jolted state Republican Party leaders this week by trying to block gay Republicans from obtaining greater power within the state party organization. The move occurred as the party was preparing political strategies for the 2006 election.

The move against the gay Republicans was rebuffed by other party members, led by the state chairman, Stephen J. Minarik, and the Manhattan chairman, James Ortenzio, who both argued that the party should have a "big tent" image heading into 2006.

Excluding gay Republicans could also have embarrassed party leaders who support gay rights, like Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who is up for re-election this year.

The Queens senator, Serphin R. Maltese, shook up a typically sleepy meeting of the New York Republican State Committee on Monday by objecting specifically to proposed bylaw changes that included adding a representative of the New York Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to the party's powerful executive committee.

[thoughtomator]

Why should homosexual Republicans be disloyal? They get more of their agenda enacted through the GOP than do, say, small-government conservatives, or anti-illegal conservatives.

[blueblazes]

I hope the Repubs can resist becoming the Log Cabin Party. I for one, am all gay-ed out. Please go back into the closet and look for something fabulous!!!

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The Queens senator, Serphin R. Maltese, shook up a typically sleepy meeting of the New York Republican State Committee on Monday by objecting specifically to proposed bylaw changes that included adding a representative of the New York Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to the party's powerful executive committee."

---

And how exactly is Senator Maltese's motion deemed to be "anti-gay"? Republicans who happen to be gay can join the executive committee if they happen to lead groups whose leaders are included in the committee, but it is ridiculous to add the leadership of a fringe liberal group such as the so-called Log Cabin Republicans to the committee. That group is composed of liberals who pose as Republicans so that the media can report that pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage bills are "bipartisan."

We need more Serphin Malteses in the NY GOP.

[ElPatriota]

:)... If I were a homosexual, why in hell would I want to be a Republican?

ANSWER: To advance the "agenda." :)

[ArGee]

The move against the gay Republicans was rebuffed by other party members, led by the state chairman, Stephen J. Minarik, and the Manhattan chairman, James Ortenzio, who both argued that the party should have a "big tent" image heading into 2006.

What about other deviants like pedophile Republicans and bestophile Republicans? Why should the homosexuals have a corner on the politically connected deviant market?

Not to mention other destructive behaviors. We are completely ignoring kleptomaniac Republicans in our big tent.

Wake up, America. A moral wrong is not a civil right.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Just a thought.

Interesting thought, but what does it have to do with the Republican party?

You have been paying attention to President Bush's budgets, haven't you?

Shalom.

[ElPatriota]

Wake up, America. A moral wrong is not a civil right.

It's all part of the 'agenda.' Divide and conquer... Make them believe we are 'just like them.'And let's face it some actually believe it,so...

[Noachian]

If I were a homosexual, why in hell would I want to be a Republican?

ANSWER: To advance the "agenda." :)

Very true. Work both parties, and whichever one is in power is the one you use to advance your agenda.

The goal is homosexual ideology, not party ideology.

[blueblazes]

We're missing that entire pyromaniac niche as well. Who are we to condemn their culture?

[BibChr]

And yet....

[Redbob]

"Excluding gay Republicans could also have embarrassed party leaders who support gay rights, like Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg,..."

And the problem with that would be... ?

[ArGee]

Make them believe we are 'just like them.'

Actually, some of us are 'just like them.' A man who leaves the wife of his youth for a trophy is not much (if any) better than a man who leaves the wife of his youth for another man.

That said, homosexuals are always deviant. Heterosexuals sometimes hold sexuality in its proper place in their lives.

Shalom.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

And how exactly is Senator Maltese's motion deemed to be "anti-gay"?

Guess it depends on whether all other auxiliary organizations have representation on the committee or not.

That group is composed of liberals who pose as Republicans so that the media can report that pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage bills are "bipartisan."

Might be true in your area, but it isn't in Kentucky. The Log Cabin Republicans I've met in Kentucky are pretty conservative guys . . . except for the one glaring difference. They are solid Republicans who are just gay.

[NJ_gent]

"Because, for the longest time the GOP has been (and will hopefully continue to be) the party of strong national defense and limited government."

Strong national defense? We have the GOP in control of the Congress and the White House and we have zero control over our own borders in a time of war. We have little control over our ports and little control over our coastline. That's not national defense - it's suicidal. Limited government? A $530 Billion Medicare bill is limited? Dumping $2 Trillion into Socialist Security is limited? Massive expansions of the Dept of Education is limited? Expansion of Federal power via the 'interstate commerce' clause vis a vis the 'medical marijuana' case is limited government?

The only thing limiting this government is the size of the paper, which restricts how many zeroes they can tack onto the end of each spending bill.

[highball]

Same here.

How the heck are they "disloyal"?

[brooklyn dave]

If a person has a basically conservative/libertarian viewpoint in regard to economic issues and a basic concern for the security of America he/she would be happier in the Republican Party rather than with the Democrats. I do believe in the big tent idea. Everything is up for discussion (one does not necessarily have to approve what is being discussed but should have the openmindedness to at least discuss it) and agendas and motives have to be constantly scrutinized, evaluated and disected. Having a knee jerk reaction doesn't help anyone. Personally, I haven't followed the doings of the Log Cabin Republicans. I know they are pretty much ridiculed in the gay community. Personally I believe most of them are fiscally conservative
and most probably endorse a pro-security, pro-American stance in regard to world politics----looking at the larger picture rather than getting totally myopic in their focus on gay related issues alone. One can do that quite nicely as a Democrat.