CommunityPam's House Blend

Freepers on Minnesota's Paul Koering

My earlier post, “Out gay Republican fights for political survival in Minnesota,” featured the quandry of conservative Paul Koering, who came out of the closet and voted against a marriage amendment measure in his legislature. He’s facing a primary challenge that will also challenge voters to decide whether his sexual orientation matters more to them than his otherwise compatible conservative political views.

The Freepi are also wringing their hands. It’s clear in order to be accepted, GOP homos are to stay in the closet. Take note Log Cabinettes.

Actual Freeper Quotes™

If a gay Republican politician wants lower taxes, is tough on the War on Terror and is for securing our borders, who cares what they do in their bedroom.

I disagree with the behavior, but I will overlook it if it stays in their bedroom. When they drag it out of the closet, put it in Macy’s window on Main Street and demand that I “accept” it under penalty of bowbeating, then I have a problem with it. Keep it in your pocket, Paul.

Koering kept it private but was “outed” by opponents. [Wrong. He came out on his own.]

Just like prostitution and drugs, victimless activities, eh? Not to mention it is immoral and against God’s will to advocate, tacitly or not, the sodomite lifestyle.

Not me. Never understood the need some have for all Republicans to think alike on every issue – it’s just another form of PC nonsense. If he votes the right way 90% of the time, is he still our enemy?

Exactly. He stepped over the line when he opposed a pro-family amendment that the vast majority of his constituents supported. Marriage and the family are foundational to society, and the fact that he may have voted conservative on other issues does not make him “ok.”

Can anyone here name “gay” politicians who support federal or state definition of marriage amendments? They cannot because it is directly opposed to what they stand for.

it depends on what kind of influence his personal life has on his actions as a politician. as long as he vote on the floor the way his constituents want him to, leave him alone. and i feel that way about any politician- they can do whatever they want outside the office – they are only human – as long as they do what the people tell them.

I got a suggestion, keep your seat to yourselves..

I don’t see how the republican party allow their name to be used as part of an identifier for a sexual inuendo. Choices have consequences. He CHOSE not to support the marriage amendment, that has consequests regardless of his hedonistic lifestyle.

‘homosexual republicans’ are as repugnant as ‘prostitute republicans’ – ‘pedophile republicans’ – ‘slut republicans’ – ‘sexual acrobat republicans’ – “heterosexual republicans’ – ‘rockefeller republicans’ blaring out and emphasizing what your particular deviancies or sexual pleasures are has NOTHING to do with politics or the country.

You left out ‘sinner’ republicans

I hope the Republican electorate there isn’t too slow to throw out a good conservative because he’s gay.

Or, a candidate can live a morally acceptable lifestyle but can still stab the President in the back in the WOT, support amnesty and want to increase government and that’s still better than voting a queer into office for some people. Lesser of two evils: Gays in office or Supports WOT? Gays in office or Supports less government?

If he is “abortion opponent, supporter of gun and property rights, outspoken supporter of veterans” he is pretty good. After all, many heterosexuals are pro-abortion. Aborting their own children is not so common among gays! I would support this fellow. It reminds me of Bill Thom, the first acknowledged gay judge in New York City, appointed by Mayor Koch. That was a controversial appointment, and I had mixed feelings about it, because someone should not be appointed just because they belong to a particular group. Nonetheless, I had know Bill Thom. I wonder if the gay activists knew what they were getting when he was appointed! He was one of the most solid conservatives I have ever known, and was a big influence on me when we were in college (at which time I knew nothing of his “sexual orientation,” as they call it).

People are seldom exactly as perfect as we might like, and when someone seems perfect, better watch out. Homosexuality is, in my opinion, a disorder. But so is liberalism. Which is more dangerous? Given that most homosexuals mind their own business and leave me alone, and liberals don’t leave us alone and are a threat to the whole country, I will prefer to elect a “gay” conservative over any sort of liberal.

I usually look at voting record if they have one first, positions on a wide range of issues and how they relate to the public are important too. We’ll see how they do.

If a gay Republican politician wants lower taxes, is tough on the War on Terror and is for securing our borders, who cares what they do in their bedroom.

“Given that most homosexuals mind their own business and leave me alone”

You haven’t been to California yet, have you? Check out the list of gay rights “special interest” bills that are up this year in our state legislature, particularly those relating to public schools and the education of other peoples children. Read about what has happened in Sweden and Canada, were speaking out against homosexuality is now hate speech. They have absolutely no intention of leaving you alone.

If you argue that you should have the right to destroy the institution of marriage by claiming its nothing more than 2 people of any gender living together, your “record” is not enough to save you. You undermine the very foundations of society, you are an enemy of society, period.

Just food for thought…On September 8, 2004, the Log Cabin Republicans chose to withhold endorsement of President Bush in the 2004 election on the grounds of his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Previous post

Brought to you by the letter 'W'

Next post

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding