Skip to comments.
[NY] State G.O.P. Rebuffs Senator Who Sees Gay Republicans as Disloyal
New York Times ^
| June 9, 2005
| Patrick D. Healy
Posted on 06/09/2005 7:45:21 AM PDT by sidewalk
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
1
posted on
06/09/2005 7:45:22 AM PDT
by
sidewalk
To: sidewalk
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.
2
posted on
06/09/2005 7:47:58 AM PDT
by
thoughtomator
(The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
To: sidewalk; All
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!!!
To: sidewalk
"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.
4
posted on
06/09/2005 7:51:04 AM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: sidewalk
:)... If I were a homosexual, why in hell would I want to be a Republican?
ANSWER: To advance the "agenda." :)
5
posted on
06/09/2005 7:52:41 AM PDT
by
ElPatriota
(Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: sidewalk
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.
7
posted on
06/09/2005 7:57:48 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
To: dinivin
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.
8
posted on
06/09/2005 7:59:09 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
To: ArGee
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...
9
posted on
06/09/2005 8:00:38 AM PDT
by
ElPatriota
(Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
To: ElPatriota
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.
10
posted on
06/09/2005 8:01:41 AM PDT
by
Noachian
(To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Senate)
To: ArGee
We're missing that entire pyromaniac niche as well. Who are we to condemn their culture?
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: sidewalk
13
posted on
06/09/2005 8:03:38 AM PDT
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: sidewalk
"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... ?
14
posted on
06/09/2005 8:06:09 AM PDT
by
Redbob
To: ElPatriota
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.
15
posted on
06/09/2005 8:06:58 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
To: AuH2ORepublican
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.
To: dinivin
"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.
17
posted on
06/09/2005 8:12:07 AM PDT
by
NJ_gent
(Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
To: Bluegrass Conservative
Same here.
How the heck are they "disloyal"?
18
posted on
06/09/2005 8:13:27 AM PDT
by
highball
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: ArGee
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.
20
posted on
06/09/2005 8:16:05 AM PDT
by
brooklyn dave
(USA OUI *** FRANCE NON)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson