Gay Patriot Header Image

GOP Reaches Out to Gays

From the Shark Tank:

This past weekend, Congressman Trey Radel was the latest to joined the growing choir of Republican supporters for inclusion of gays into the Republican fold. Radel stated that he did not care what sexual orientation a person was, as long as they stood by conservative values and principles…

Although I do not confuse outreach to gays with support for gay marriage (and neither should you), this news is interesting for coming on the heels of shifts in public Republican support for gay marriage, such as Senator Portman’s. Also, Radel’s outreach fits well with the founding principles of GOProud.

(Note to Gay Left commentors: This post is Jeff talking, not Bruce or Dan. I’m a current Independent and former Democrat; never been a Republican, though I have some Republican friends. The tired remarks about gay Republicans that some of you may now want to utter will not hurt me; only make me roll my eyes. ;-) )

Share

25 Comments

  1. We need a video of you rolling your eyes (the emoticon won’t do it).

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 19, 2013 @ 5:23 am - March 19, 2013

  2. Times are changing. But until we conservatives are willing to face up to the unmitigated absurdity of liberty alongside sexual segregation, swathes of otherwise reachable voters will continue to regard our movement as undeserving of their support. Over time, our electoral prospects will be diminished and our important arguments on issues like gun rights, the size of the state and taxation, will be delegitimized as products of a hypocritical ideology.
    We conservatives must break from our reflexive understanding of equality as the watchword of a liberal-activist state. Equality isn’t our enemy, it’s our ally. It’s the means to conservative empowerment.
    America belongs to each one of us, and we all deserve the opportunity to engage and to achieve. And where we reject others simply because of the adults they choose to love, we aren’t only dishonoring our fellow citizens, we are betraying the most crucial of all conservative values – individual liberty. As the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln, once affirmed:
    “If there is anything that a man can do well, I say let him do it. Give him a chance.”
    Left unchallenged, CPAC’s decision leads us down a sinking path. Without freedom, our conservatism is rendered a parochial meritocracy of the pure. A movement disconnected from our fellow citizens, detached from modernity and destructive of the national unity, which, in our party’s birth, Republicans once so nobly defended.

    http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/cpac-2013-excludes-gay-republicans.

    Comment by rusty — March 19, 2013 @ 10:46 am - March 19, 2013

  3. We need a video of you rolling your eyes

    We’ll see. BTW, the emoticon was just winking at them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2013 @ 10:46 am - March 19, 2013

  4. Well according to Rush, there ARE limits to your freedom, doncha ya know. Yeah first time commenter. I need somewhere to go to vent my frustration with the repubs on this issue.

    Comment by jewells — March 19, 2013 @ 1:19 pm - March 19, 2013

  5. Alternate headline: “GOP tells 40% of its base to go f–k itself; Sucks up to People Who Will Never Vote for Them.”

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2013 @ 1:22 pm - March 19, 2013

  6. Well according to Rush, there ARE limits to your freedom, doncha ya know.

    Really, like what? I’ve listened to Rush awhile, and never heard him talk about taking away gay freedom. So, please be specific.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - March 19, 2013

  7. #5 — How about the GOP begins treating voters like grownups and tells them what it really stands for — offering an intelligent and cohesive vision — instead of telling two different groups conflicting things?

    In other words, how about it gets its crap together and stops the two-faced dance it’s been giving soc cons and small government cons?

    Do they stand for limited government and the Constitution and individual liberties, or for big-government theocracy?

    If they don’t come clean on this, they will expose themselves as the amoral, power-hungry, borderline sociopaths they really are.

    Telling the “base” to grow up and start thinking clearly is not “telling them to go f-k themselves.”

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 19, 2013 @ 1:33 pm - March 19, 2013

  8. “GOP tells 40% of its base to go f–k itself; Sucks up to People Who Will Never Vote for Them.”

    True only if purity is more important than actually governing…which REQUIRES actually winning elections. Those who are registered as Republicans make-up only 20-30% of the actual voting-electorate. Without a substantial number in independents supporting Republican candidates the GOP can’t win general elections. When 18-22% of the G/L electorate currently- votes for/with the GOP now…why not at-least try to appeal to more G/L voters in future elections? ….They just might vote GOP next-time.

    The same is true with like-minded Hispanics and other minority voters.

    The GOP will never win-over the Liberals or the liberal-leaning independents. But there are conservative and moderate independents who can be convinced if appealing, thought-out counter-proposals to the standard Liberal tropes are supported by a “big-tent” GOP. Simply clutching-pearls and demanding purity might get the base fired-up…but it doesn’t win general elections Nationally, or in the Northeast and Upper Midwest States.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 19, 2013 @ 1:38 pm - March 19, 2013

  9. You don’t win elections by screwing over half your base.

    I strongly doubt the GOP will benefit by pandering to liberals. The Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act over Demonrat opposition; what electoral good did it do them?

    If the Republicans had half a brain, they would work with the socially responsible right to find other issues they could champion to make up for selling out on gay marriage. Instead, they’re just going to serve half their base a sh-t sandwich and expect them to eat it.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2013 @ 2:24 pm - March 19, 2013

  10. #9 — It won’t benefit by pandering to social conservatives, either.

    They are so accustomed to being coddled and treated like little kids that they have come — just like the liberals they so depise — to expect it.

    What offers them a s-t sandwich is continuing to assume they’re all immature and incapable of being told the truth and made to formulate a consistent governmental policy.

    I don’t think they all deserve to be treated that patronizingly. At least a fair number of them are actual adults.

    That they need to be flattered and buttered up and told how morally superior to everyone else is, I think, largely a myth with all but the hard-core kindergarten crowd within their ranks. That is an exercise in sheer narcissism. A growing number of them understand that.

    Politics are about the workings of government. It’s not about what people want to think about themselves. Liberals believe the latter. If conservatives do not again begin to understand the former, this country really is in deep soup.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 19, 2013 @ 3:12 pm - March 19, 2013

  11. No, what,social conservatives have gotten accustomed to is getting lip-service from the party in election years then screwed once the election is over. Can you name even one socially conservative piece of legislation passed in the Bush years? I can’t frankly. They couldn’t even ban partial birth abortion, even though 80% of the public is appalled by it.

    It isn’t a matter of flattery; socially responsible conservatives really believe that liberal social policies are destructive; and there are entire libraries of evidence to support their position

    Dismissing them as mere egotists is as ignorant as it Is insulting.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2013 @ 3:43 pm - March 19, 2013

  12. A lot of us have begun to conclude there is no meaningful differences between Democrats and Republicans; on fiscal or social issues. Every concession makes that more obvious.

    If the Republicans stood strong on fiscal responsibility, one might have an argument that social issues don’t matter. (I happen to think they do.) But they are not; Boehner can’t seem to concede ground fast enough to Obama and the Ryan Plan still grows Government 3.5% per year.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2013 @ 3:50 pm - March 19, 2013

  13. To the degree that soc cons believe liberal social policies are destructive, they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with libertarians. There are RINOs in the GOP who may support those policies, but to suggest that libertarians believe government’s place is to institute social policies — Left or Right — would be a blatant, bald-faced lie.

    Soc cons need to be honest about how they use the term to describe themselves. If they’re using it to distinguish themselves from those icky libertarians because they don’t want our cooties, they need to come out and say so. If they simply want to distinguish themselves from RINOs who believe in using big government to force social policy via legislation, then they need to say that.

    The term “social conservative” is still being used in the same muddy, slippery, shifty way it has been for years. Those on the Right who insist on smaller government and protection of the Constitution are no longer going to stand for it. Soc cons need to stand up and state clearly what they are for, as well as what they are against.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 19, 2013 @ 4:25 pm - March 19, 2013

  14. “Soc Con” is becoming a mindless epithet; I prefer “Socially Responsible Conservative.”

    Now then, are SRC’s right that single parenting is a societal problem? Yes, there are reams of studies showing kids are better off with two parents and less likely to be on welfare or in the criminal justice system as adults. Are SRC’s correct that the left is is using public schools for social indoctrination? Yes. Are SRC’s correct that there are health consequences and social consequences to promiscuity? Again, yes.

    Many suspect that the real left-wing agenda is a Folsom Street Fair in every town. Is this a legitimate concern? I don’t know, but forty years of left-wing social policy makes it hard to dismiss.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2013 @ 4:48 pm - March 19, 2013

  15. #14 — I notice you refuse to deal with what I said. We get more canned talking points instead.

    Call them anything you want. Re-brand them to your heart’s content. The issue I raise is very simple. What is their philosophy of government?

    I don’t care what their opinions are on this or that issue. Any more than I do what they think of themselves. That’s nothing but more narcissism and an attempt to distract.

    What is their philosophy about government? Where, according to that philosophy, does it belong, and where does it not belong? What is its proper function.

    I don’t care about what this-or-that liberal wants to do, I want an honest answer. Not more song-and-dance and blather.

    As I have never been to the Folsom Street Fair and have no intention of ever going, bringing it up is entirely irrelevant. Smoke and mirrors.

    Forty years of their refusal — whatever they’re calling themselves now — makes it hard to take seriously that they intend to deal with the American people with candor.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 19, 2013 @ 5:56 pm - March 19, 2013

  16. I don’t think there would be a politically active social right if there weren’t a politically active social left actively using the institutions of Government (public schools, the court system) to force their secularist agenda on the public and indoctrinate children with values that are contrary to their parents values.

    Libertarians don’t really have a solution to the problem of left-wing activists using Government to advance their agenda; probably because, so many Libertarians are socially liberal, they don’t see it as a problem.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2013 @ 7:41 pm - March 19, 2013

  17. It’s quite impossible to argue with someone who makes a claim, and when the claim is refuted, claims that wasn’t the claim she was trying to make.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2013 @ 7:43 pm - March 19, 2013

  18. Not sure what you’re representing my “claim” as being. Sounds like more hula-wiggle. Kindly specify.

    It does not matter whether one is a “social liberal” with regard to one’s own personal behavior and that of others. As are libertarians. You are — perhaps deliberately — conflating what government does with what its citizens do in their own lives.

    Libertarians (real ones, anyway) do not believe in using government to promote liberal activism any more that they do using government for conservative activism. And if you believe that all libertarians are social liberals, you are ignorant.

    You’re a big boy, and you’re not stupid. It’s hard to believe you need to go through all this abracadabra simply because I asked you a simple question. To which I still have not received an answer.

    What is the “socially responsible conservatives’” philosophy of government?

    Crickets. Or more razzle-dazzle to divert the subject onto something else.

    And again, just for kicks and giggles, what are you saying my “claim” is? Pray tell, so we’ll know you you “refuted” it.

    This is fun. I can play all day.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 19, 2013 @ 8:27 pm - March 19, 2013

  19. Well according to Rush, there ARE limits to your freedom, doncha ya know.

    I just listened to “YYZ” and “Tom Sawyer” three times in a row, and I’m not quite sure if I agree with your interpretation.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 19, 2013 @ 8:29 pm - March 19, 2013

  20. The KKK started the minutemen and then the Teabag Party. Now they control the GOP. Does anyone real believe that minorities will change the view of the GOP. The GOP just wants to send out coconuts out with the same old GOP message of protecting the rich, because they no longer hold a lead on civil liberties because they were the ones who came up and passed the Patriot Act, they were the ones who kidnapped and waterboarded, they were the ones who passed vaginal ultrasound bills throughout the nation (but leave the child abandoned after birth), they are the ones who love hating the gays, they were the ones who passed minority voter suppression laws right before a national election. I think the GOP has written off all minorities, but hey send out your coconuts, but don’t expect winning any elections. The GOP will reap what they have sown!

    Comment by Montana — March 23, 2013 @ 3:28 pm - March 23, 2013

  21. Don’t worry, Montana; no one here has ever confused liberals like yourself with intelligent, rational, tolerant people.

    And you’re right; the GOP will never appeal to racist bigots like yourself and your fellow Obama supporters because the GOP is centered on judging people by character rather than skin color, and you and your fellow Obama supporters judge people by skin color rather than character.

    Given the unemployment and poverty rates among black, Hispanic, and gay Americans since Obama took power, what we can see is that their support of racist politicians like Obama only makes matters worse for them. But again this is reaping what they have sown; they wanted a racist bigot like Obama in power, and they’re now getting it, good and hard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2013 @ 4:45 pm - March 23, 2013

  22. “Although I do not confuse outreach to gays with support for gay marriage…..”

    —–

    While we’re on that subject, just what exactly does DOMA say?

    I was under the impression that the Federal government was usurping a state’s right to regulate marriage in it’s own territory. It is the states that issues marriage license after all. Federal interference would violate the 10th amendment, in my opinion.

    But does DOMA actually do that? I’ve been going back and forth on the issue, but if what I suspect is true, then I’ll have to support it again.

    My question: Does DOMA itself place limits on marriage or does it simply reiterate a state’s right to decide that issue?

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 24, 2013 @ 2:42 pm - March 24, 2013

  23. Having accomplished nothing, Obama will be forgotten days after he leaves office. The much bigger concern is the Republican Party. There’s no point in criticizing your opponent unless you have something better to offer. Romney was proof that we don’t. Now Republican party leadership is gutting its core – conservative Christianity – by following the same lead as the Democrats. Phony panderers (i.e. NJ Gov. Christie) who endorse homosexual perversion (pseudonym – ‘gay marriage’) are evil. Allowing its followers to adopt innocent children (as Romney supported) is just as horribly wicked. The Word of God states that it is not just those who DO the evil, but also those who ENDORSE their actions who will be judged guilty and condemned by Jesus Christ at the judgment. We are becoming a 1 party system. Sincere Christians – expect to be hated and ridiculed for speaking the truth. That which sinful man loves – God despises. That which God loves – evil man despises. (The Book of James) Jesus warned us that, if evil people hated Him, they will likewise hate us. Regardless of what the false Bible teachers claim, God’s grace is not free. Repentance from sin is required.

    Comment by Jeremy — March 25, 2013 @ 8:06 am - March 25, 2013

  24. N.D.30, For years the southern states have tried to blame to bad economy on the undocumented immigrant, and worse the companies that the GOP protects the companies that pad their profits by hiring the undocumented immigrant. How hypocritical, now they expect to get elected, please go blow yourself. That’s the only one you can do right by.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/how-many-fortune-500-companies-pad-their-profits-by-hiring-illegal-aliens

    Comment by Montana — March 25, 2013 @ 11:54 am - March 25, 2013

  25. gg – I thought that DOMA just said (1) the Feds won’t recognize gay marriage, (2) States should not be compelled to recognize each other’s gay marriages.

    The second part may run afoul of the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 5:03 pm - March 25, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.