Gop Gays Towing The Party Line
Bob Packwood says he lived the perfect Washington sex life in recent years - an imaginary one - and he may be right. The fallen politician’s famed diaries, with their breathless descriptions of tight skirts, tighter blouses and a completely tight United States senator, could only have been written by a man who had been held celibate against his will for a very long time.
Sen. de Sade’s memoirs thrill the sexless establishment in Washington the way Lotto drawings excite bums: They offer hope that impossible dreams can come true.
Still, when it comes to sex, Washington’s prurient prudes fumble more than they score. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole stumbled into the muck recently when he returned a $1,000 check from the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual advocacy group, even though his campaign had sent out letters that day seeking individual contributions from the organization’s leaders.
Dole announced that he doesn’t share the group’s agenda, which is odd - since it generally supports his. The 42 clubs in 31 states back the Contract With America. They support tax cuts. They promote deregulation. They advocate a strong national defense. They oppose affirmative action and quotas. They like the idea of school choice. They toe the conservative economic line Dole has sought out in recent months - and they have contributed $200,000 to GOP candidates in the last year.
The organization’s list of uniquely “gay” requests is relatively short. It wants the Food and Drug Administration to speed up the drugapproval process. It supports the Ryan White Care Act. It opposes the gay ban in the military. It wants Congress to forbid workplace discrimination against homosexuals - with exemptions for small businesses, religious organizations and the armed forces. And it hopes to purge anti-homosexual language from the party platform.
Dole is the latest in a long line of officials who can’t figure out whether gays belong in or out of the party’s Big Tent. He does know that the GOP has an unhappy history when it comes to lecturing Americans about corruptions of the flesh. Former Rep. Bob Bauman used to deliver fiery diatribes against the Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name - until someone revealed his fondness for firm and willing young men. And most party leaders have trusted aides or friends who are gay.
Still, some Republicans want to ban contributions from the Log Cabin group and hang scarlet letters on all homosexuals. Yet the idea hasn’t gotten very far. When the proposal surfaced last week, Rep. J.C. Watts, an ordained Baptist minister and a flaming heterosexual (a dad of five), demurred. “You can love the sinner and detest the sin,” he warned.
This raises a thorny question: When should a political party close its doors to people who support its larger views and goals? The Log Cabin Forum takes no positions inimical to the traditional family. It does not advocate homosexuality as a lifestyle. It doesn’t seek legal sanction of homosexual unions or adoptions by gay couples. It vehemently opposes pederasty and pedophilia. And it promotes policies dear to the Christian Coalition.
If pro-family groups are right in saying that only about 3 percent of the population is homosexual, anti-gay activists are wasting energy on small potatoes while ignoring more worthy prey - such as cads who leave their wives and kids.
Furthermore, the party doesn’t want to begin purging people with odd rutting habits, since that could force a lot of red-faced politicos to pursue honest work.
Some folks fret about homosexuality with the unnerving vehemence of a parson who can’t hear enough about other people’s sins.
These activists have spoken their piece during the last fortnight - and straight folks have turned away. Most of us don’t want to hear about homosexuality, think about it or worry about it unless gay groups suddenly want to begin proselytizing in public.
The Log Cabin guys aren’t asking anybody to emulate or praise their amorous activities. For the most part, they just want to keep their jobs - and let churches and other organizations handle the moral heavy lifting. They, perhaps more than anybody else in the political world, understand that the last group one would want standing in judgment of sexual practices are the men and women who serve in the United States Congress.
xxxx