Is Randy Forbes trying to sabotage gay Republican Congressional candidates?PoliticsVirginia

Granted, it’s Politico, but if they’re even close to correct on this, my new member of Congress (I recently moved to Suffolk) has a serious problem:

Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, a senior House Republican eyeing a powerful committee chairmanship, is causing friction with some of his colleagues by pushing the House GOP campaign arm to deny support for some of the party’s gay congressional candidates.

Forbes has waged a lengthy crusade to convince his colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee brass they shouldn’t back some gay candidates. His efforts on Capitol Hill were described to POLITICO by more than a half-dozen sources with direct knowledge of the talks.

The issue is particularly acute because House Republicans have two promising openly gay candidates in 2014 vying for seats held by Democrats. Richard Tisei, who narrowly lost to Democratic Rep. John Tierney in 2012, is running again in northeastern Massachusetts. And in San Diego, Carl DeMaio, a former city councilman, is trying to knock off Democratic Rep. Scott Peters.

Now, the article authors only focus on two candidates (Tisei and DeMaio), and it appears they only asked Forbes about DeMaio, so for all we know, Forbes might just have a hang up about the Californian. Moreover, Forbes is angling to take over the House Armed Services Committee, and while he’s not the favorite, it may very well be that someone is is blowing stuff waaaaaaaay out of proportion just to keep him a long shot.

However, Forbes did himself no favors with his statements:

On Wednesday, Forbes told POLITICO he thinks “GOP leaders can do whatever they want to do,” in terms of giving money to gay candidates.

He said he is more concerned about members being asked to contribute to the campaigns. The NRCC is partially funded by collecting tens of millions of dollars from House Republicans, who pay dues to the organization.

“There would be a different situation if they tried to force other members to give money,” Forbes said.

Asked whether he would have a problem with the NRCC donating money to DeMaio, Forbes said, “That’s a little different situation.”

“I don’t think they’ve done that yet,” Forbes added.

When asked if he would withhold political contributions to the NRCC if they backed DeMaio, Forbes said, “I’m not going to be hypothetical on what we would or wouldn’t do at this particular point in time because you’ve got a lot of scenarios. I don’t think we’ve had primaries and nominations to nominate people. So I don’t want to prejudge.”

Notice anything missing? Like say a statement making it abundantly clear that using sexual orientation to disqualify a candidate is a no-no? Me neither, and that’s the problem.

Has the Republican Party of Virginia fallen so far that opposing Bob McDonnell’s tax hike is considered “extreme,” but backroom homophobia is just fine?

Memo to my Congressman: the clock is ticking; I think 24 hours to be sufficient for a much needed clarification. Likewise for the newfound “moderates” who make up the Bolling faction (as it were) of the the RPV: you have 24 hours to practice what you preach, condemn this behavior (if you don’t think Forbes actually did it, you can feel free to blast the concept without touching him), and show me this is about more than giving yourselves cover for tax increases.

@deejaymcguire | facebook.com/people/Dj-McGuire | DJ’s posts

  • Rick_Sincere

    Forbes seems amateurishly tongue-tied when he talks about these openly gay GOP candidates. Contrast this with what NRCC Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) stated to POLITICO:

    “Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats.”

    When you’re in the business of electing candidates to public office, you don’t erect needless hurdles along their way.

    • Warmac9999

      Virginia has a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and it was overwhelmingly approved by the citizenry. Forbes should be careful when vetting gays.

      • JReynolds79

        With comments like this (Warmac), who needs Democratic opposition? We’ll establish the circular firing squad ourselves.

        “Vetting gays,” I hope you’re kidding. Unless you’re looking for a date, what difference does it make whom a person chooses to love?

        When will Virginia purists realize the inherent contradiction in stating that they want “limited government,” and then attempting to legislate morality? It doesn’t make sense to anyone except the vocal minority that continues its Chicken Little, social escapades.

        But the irony of it all is these same people complain about electoral results without realizing they are the problem. So keep giving the media leverage. Facilitate their efforts. After all, we’re the party of efficiency-so we shouldn’t make the media do the theoretical legwork of having to build up theoretical straw men. Lets just give them bigots, and they can present them to the court of public opinion. Seems to be an effective campaign strategy lately. Right?

        • Warmac9999

          The LGBT folk have done a marvelous job of undermining the moral structure of the nation and creating a set of distortions that hide the sadness of the gay life. Having said that, Forbes cautiousness is appropriate in a state that has expressed a very conservative outlook on homosexuality. If you want a different set of words, go to California.

          • JerseyRed

            The only thing sad about a “gay” life is that they have to hide who they are to placate people like you who judge them for who they are.

            In terms of the Marshall-Newman Amendment, a lot has changed in 7 years. I guarantee that if an amendment approving same-sex marriage was put on the ballot today that it would pass.

        • Warmac9999

          If republicans don’t vet their candidates, then the democrats most certainly will. And if some 17 year old boys rise to claim he was molested by a gay candidate, the election is lost and the entire party looks like a bunch of moral hypocrites. Remember what happened to Meg Whitman in California. She was squeaky clean until some maid who had forged her citizenship papers got Gloria Alred involved.

          • JReynolds79

            I’m not going to dignify this with a substantive response. But a word of advice, don’t ever repeat this in public. To jump from sexual orientation to child molestation is offensive to anyone with an IQ in the double digits (more less triple). And if you want to discuss hypocrisy, do you really think any Democrat would attack a candidate for whom they choose to start a family with? A Democrat attacking any LGBT lifestyle would be hypocrisy at its finest…but I digress

          • Warmac9999

            NAMBLA is purely a homosexual pedophile organization. I am more than happy to lay out the truth and let people decide. You do not want this spoken because it damages the normalcy mantra. And if you think democrats are willing to jump on the gay bandwagon you are living an illusion. They want the gay vote but will quickly disavow anyone, including a gay or the whole gay movement, when it is politically expedient.

          • JReynolds79

            I don’t know that any rational human being would read this thread and come to the conclusion that I’m the one living in an illusion. As for your ridiculous NAMBLA reference, you do realize that is a fringe element and in no way indicative of the movement at large. To put it in terms you might understand, that would be on par with using Timothy McVeigh as the standard bearer for all Christians-which is equally ridiculous.

        • Downstater

          It matters when one is running for office to represent the people of his/her district. The state is the one that sanctions marriage, that is not legislating morality. Legislating morality would be if gays were arrested or put in jail or fined.

      • Not Harry F. Byrd

        “Vetting gays”.

        As if they are what, foreign agents? What is the “vetting” process for “gays”? Must they watch some hetero porn and pretend to like it? Is there a loyalty oath?

        What utter horsedung.

        • Warmac9999

          Whether you like it or not, a heterosexual liaison by a married man with other women is far more acceptable than similar homosexual behavior. Clinton would have been removed from office if his sexual liaison had been with Joe Lewinsky.

          • JayD

            To whom??? You? Not in my church.

        • midwestconservative

          I agree with vetting all candidates. We don’t want one blowing up in our face regardless of sexual orientation.

  • Mac

    It seems that the important considerations with Tisei and DeMaio are their positions on issues. Neither of them support the recognizing the human rights and dignity of kids in the womb, and they are both in favor of the Supreme Court re-defining marriage for the entire nation, over the expressed will of most states, including Virginia. These two issues are critical in analyzing someone’s base ideas about the value of human life, and the proper role of the federal judiciary. Reigning in the federal budget is critical, but it is not nearly as foundational as these two issues.

    • JayD

      uh, Mac, you do know same-sex marriage is legit & legal in Mass and CA, right?

      • Tommy Valentine

        Both candidates appear to support imposing homosexual marriage nationwide.

        • JayD

          You mean they support equal rights for all Americans? Damn – now THAT is radical extremism!

        • Warmac9999

          Imposing is the progressive way. They talk about equality but don’t find it in the freedoms of the social space but in the regulations and dictates of government.

          • JayD

            And by what means, other than referendum, courts, and Congress, have we ever used to rectify legalized inequality in this country? Breaking down legal barriers has an impact on only one group – those that do not currently have access to equality. It does not require you to become gay, or even to like gay. There is NO imposition.

          • Warmac9999

            By convincing the public at large of the merits of your case. I suggest MLK.

          • JayD

            MLK was a voice of the movement; it took passage of the Civil Rights Act in Congress (LEGISLATION) to change public behavior.

          • Warmac9999

            Actually the civil rights act and the resulting welfare state set back the advances associated with the rapidly changing racial dynamics of MLKs Ghandish approach. He appealed to people’s inherent sense of fairness and justice. You seem to forget that slavery was overthrown by the white population.

          • JayD

            No, slavery was ‘overthrown’ by executive action, a costly civil war, and the 14th Amendment. Unless you refer to the relatively small abolitionist movement?

            Court actions, not generous white folk, ended Jim Crow. The South has never generated it’s own progress and almost always requires a swift kick from the Court to get it right.

            And if the Civil Rights Act is responsible for the welfare state, explain the roughly equal percentage of whites & blacks receiving welfare? Government policies corralling blacks (segregating) and incentiveizing fatherless households had much larger hand in perpetuating poverty.

      • Downstater

        CA voted it down. It was only activist judges who pushed it through, and then the SC had its own activist judges legislating from the bench. Furthermore, I am happy not to live in either of those 2 Gay states, and to live in VA instead.

        • JayD

          Yeah, I know – those damn activist judges ruin everything.
          Reminder …in the 50′s there was almost unanimous public opinion (amongst whites) regarding inter-racial marriages. It took activist judges to strike down Virginia and other southern state anti-miscegenation laws.
          Exactly why we have the Court – to counter the political branches of government that often get it wrong.
          Gay states???

  • http://jsnotes.com/ Jason Kenney

    How many other candidates has Forbes pushed the NRCC not to back, regardless of their sexual orientation? They pull out two openly gay candidates from what could feasibly be a longer list of people he questions the politics of and say “AH HA!” This reeks of gotcha.

    Who did Forbes upset to get thrown under this bus?

    • D.j. McGuire

      Like I said in the post, odds are someone who wants to make sure Forbes is not the next Armed Services Committee Chairman tipped Politico off, but that doesn’t excuse Forbes from his mistake in not saying sexual orientation shouldn’t disqualify candidates for office.

      • Tommy Valentine

        Where did he say that it should?

    • midwestconservative

      He upset Mark Warner. People talking about him running against Mark in 2014. This was a preemptive strike.

  • DJRippert

    You guys kill me.

    “Their minds are perverted, they’re frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally and they see everything through the lens of homosexuality. When they talk about love they’re not talking about love, they’re talking about homosexual sex.”

    EW Jackson, recent Republican candidate for Lt Governor.

    • http://www.southsidecentral.com/ Bruce Hedrick

      There’s a pretty good reason why Earl didn’t announce his transition team in the middle of November.

    • Warmac9999

      He should have backed up his claims with the available data. Essentially his comments, while generally true, were too easily attacked.

      • JerseyRed

        What “data” do you speak of, Warmac? I’d love to hear this.

        • Warmac9999

          See below for a minimum.

      • DJRippert

        My only point is that Steve Forbes seems positively mild on the matter of gay rights compared to EW Jackson. The Republicans in Virginia need to figure out where they stand on this. DJ McGuire thinks that being homosexual should not disqualify a Republican candidate. I assume that represents the opinion of a notable percentage of Virginia Republicans. Meanwhile, EW Jackson believes gays are perverted and very sick. Sadly, I assume that represents a notable percentage of Virginia Republicans.

        Doesn’t somebody need to put some guard rails on this street of debate?

    • Downstater

      He was just saying what a lot of us think it we weren’t afraid of being bashed by the politically correct police. And there are many other reasons that he didn’t win. Actually, he really got a considerably larger percentage of votes than expected given that he started as such an unlikely candidate.

  • JerseyRed

    Very disappointed in Randy as well, D.J. Ashamed to call him my Congressman after these statements. For full disclosure, I am a gay Republican, and for him to not disavow the idea that certain congressional candidates shouldn’t received funds because they are gay is disgusting and shameful. Now, am I surprised he said such a thing? No, I am not. Yet another reason why the GOP loses me more and more each day.

    Simple fact: the country has changed and will continue to change. The Democrats got the memo and we didn’t. Republicans that continue this kind of thinking will eventually find themselves in the unemployment line, while the GOP is left to rot in the wilderness.

    • Tommy Valentine

      Either that, or the issue will come back like a boomerang.

      • Warmac9999

        The gay Gestapo is already in trouble as people begin to dislike and reject their in your face behavior.

    • Downstater

      Assuming that you are pro-gay so-called marriage, I don’t see why the national party apparatus should give money to those who oppose its platform. This doesn’t prevent individuals from giving to the candidates of their choice.

      I suppose that if we had a gay candidate come out and say that he/she did not feel that the definition of marriage should be changed by the government, and that he/she was happy living with partner as they have done for centuries, then fine. But now it is all about pushing Gay marriage on the rest of us and corrupting our youth.

  • Tommy Valentine

    Both of those candidates support homosexual marriage. For that reason they should not be supported, regardless of their personal sexuality – I can’t speak for Forbes, but I would not support a straight candidate who supported homosexual marriage either. It is contrary to Republican principles.

    • JReynolds79

      And what principle is that? Limited government? Acknowledging that protecting the minority voice or opinion is a critical component of liberalism (in its traditional sense)? Or maybe the principle of “personal freedom”? Oh wait…

      • Tommy Valentine

        Not injecting the government into an institution it didn’t create? And not forcing the government to sanction romance in which it has no legitimate interest? Gay marriage is big government at its finest.

        • JerseyRed

          Then let’s just get government out of marriage all together. Picking and choosing which marriages is nothing more than government sanctioned discrimination.

          • Tommy Valentine

            No, not really; regardless, why aren’t you making that argument instead of expanding government power in marriage?

        • JReynolds79

          Wow, I don’t know where to begin. This is an utterly misguided bastardization of liberalism, but here goes…

          First, “injecting government into an institution it didn’t create.” Implicit within this assertion is some contrived narrative that Christianity “created” the concept of marriage. Google any civilization that existed before Christianity (and yes, there were advanced civilizations long before Christianity was invented).

          Second, the government acknowledges marriage as a legally enforceable contract whereby both parties have rights. I guess we could remove it in its entirety, but you do realize that would result in a myriad of problems in terms of wills, divorce law, adoption law, and a litany of other areas that relate to the family unit. But this is probably where you will contend that homosexual families are perverse or something asinine like that.

          Third, “sanction romance.” Seriously? I’m hoping this is a sick joke. Why should the government have any authority over the romantic life of two consenting adults? And don’t give me some BS line about it being a “crime against nature.” Only you and Ken Cuccinelli actually believe that legislation is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to legislate morality.

          Fourth, “big government at its finest”? Hardly. Gay marriage merely affords the same legal rights to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples already enjoy.

          And don’t forget about that pesky little thing known as the equal protection clause-but that probably doesn’t resonate with your flawed conception of “conservatism” either.

          • Tommy Valentine

            When did I say Christianity created marriage? Marriage has existed from the beginning of man, before any organized religion.

            Government is not involved in marriage just to enforce contracts. Government is not involved in marriage because it’s interested in the love between two consenting adults. If that were the case, by all means, get the government out of the bedroom. But government is involved in marriage because it is the relationship that unites a man and a woman as husband and wife who are then equipped to raise any children that union may produce. This is based on the anthropological reality that men and women are distinct and complementary; based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman; and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

            Since gay marriages cannot produce children, all that government does by recognizing them is recognizing their romance. Why should the government have any authority over the romantic life of two consenting adults? It shouldn’t. So why do you want the government to recognize it if it has no interest in it?

            Allowing the government to redefine an institution it did not create is a massive expansion of government power.

            The equal protection clause does not apply, because homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal. That is a fact, not my belief. To say that they are equal is to deny reality; you’re only fooling yourself. I’m all for marriage equality. I’m not for false equality.

          • JReynolds79

            While eloquent, your argument essentially states that “homosexuality is not natural”-which is laughable. I could cite various species that have been found to engage in homosexual activity. I could also cite thousands upon thousands of legitimate, scientific studies indicating that homosexuality is biological.

            Or I could highlight that your line of thinking would effectively prohibit sterile men or women from enjoying “marriage”.

            But it’s more fun analyzing your completely self-contradictory statements. “But government is involved in marriage because it is the relationship that unites a man and a woman as husband and wife who are then equipped to raise any children that union may produce” What if they aren’t equipped? What if it’s a *gasp* one-night stand between two people completely un-equipped to parent or raise a family? Maybe we should legislate when and where you can have sex too?

            Now, if you’re asserting that the government has a vested interest in encouraging the nuclear family unit, that’s a distinctly different conversation. But everyone knows that is not your point as it would undermine your entire argument. A family is a family. The only “big government” manuever currently being promulgated is coming from the Republican camp when it attempts to define what a “family” is unilaterally – which is precisely what you are doing.

          • Tommy Valentine

            Where did I make a claim about whether homosexuality is natural? That’s an enormous red herring you’re presenting, as is “Maybe we should legislate when and where you can have sex too?”

            On sterile couples – any heterosexual couple capable of consummating their marriage is inherently capable of bearing and raising a child. This includes “infertile” couples. A couple that was not capable of the marital act is not capable of marriage. Sexual intercourse is still inclined towards bodily union and reproduction whether conception occurs or not and whether the couple is seeking conception or not. Which is why the law has always recognized “infertile” marriages. The costs of SSM are still being counted and will be counted for as long as it exists, but some of those already identified are violation of natural law, corrosion of public perception of the purpose of marriage, and the dismantling of monogamy. As for the benefits of “infertile” marriages – I keep putting it in quotations because many couples believed to be infertile end up conceiving children, but regardless, determining fertility would be an unjust invasion of privacy, as I’m sure you would agree. Even if they never have children, their marriages do not corrode the marriage culture. Not recognizing infertile marriages would violate the principle of equality, because they are equal to fertile marriages, just varying in degree.

            Yes, I am asserting that the government has a vested interest in encouraging the nuclear family unit. That’s the basis on my argument. Children do best with a married mother and father. Period. A homosexual marriage with children inherently deprives the children of either a mother or a father. I don’t see how I or the GOP is trying to “define” family – it’s already defined, and leftists are trying to redefine it.

          • JReynolds79

            If I wanted the Catholic position on gay marriage, I would have picked up the Catechism (which I’ve read in its entirety-gotta love Catholic schooling). But if I remember correctly, the last time the Church was granted political authority it perpetrated violent behavior far beyond the scope of anything we see today – Middle East included. But I digress…

            As for the red herrings, they’re largely a byproduct of your completely disjointed logic. I know I can’t persuade you anymore than I could any other hard-line ideologue. But the court of public opinion does not fall in your favor, regardless of what contrived statistics you might want to throw out.

            And “tradition” is never a cogent, logical justification-as is assumed in your statement that family is “already defined”. But you’re probably too young to remember when family was “defined” as only two people of the same race. Or two people of the same social class. Or whatever other arbitrary lines have been drawn in the past to define “family.”

          • Tommy Valentine

            When losing an argument, do not address the points being made; instead, result to mischaracterization, straw men, name-calling, etc.

          • JReynolds79

            And when arguing an indefensible position, rely on confirmation and self-selection bias to rationalize your utterly intolerable worldview.

          • Tommy Valentine

            And I’m the ideologue?

          • JReynolds79

            Yes, in fact you are…I’m glad we’re in agreement on something.

          • Tommy Valentine

            Funny. Your narrow-mindedness is quite striking.

          • JReynolds79

            Yep, ignorance is bliss what can I say?

            Maybe one day I’ll possess your intellectual rigor and I can follow in the footsteps of guys like you, Ken Cuccinelli, et al. I can’t imagine a more fulfilling life.

          • Tommy Valentine

            You are not a serious person. Come back when you are genuinely interested in having a serious discussion.

          • JReynolds79

            “Serious” went the way of the dodo bird when this conversation didn’t demand a logically coherent platform or a holistic political theory. If you don’t already see that, you never will.

            Have fun hurting the Republican cause though. After all, it’s better to lose a purist. Right?

          • Tommy Valentine

            I presented you with an argument that was reasoned, articulate, and “eloquent”, to quote you. Your responses were the opposite. Instead, you’re telling me that what you perceive to be my entire worldview is wrong. That’s not an argument.

          • midwestconservative

            “intolerable” nice tolerance there bub.

          • JayD

            “A couple that was not capable of the marital act is not capable of marriage.” Saaaay what??
            I don’t recall being asked if I was capable of copulation when obtaining our marriage license. Is that something new?

          • Tommy Valentine

            “determining fertility would be an unjust invasion of privacy, as I’m sure you would agree.”

          • JayD

            You said ‘a couple not capable of the marital act is not capable of marriage. The ‘marital act’ is known as sexual intercourse or copulation.
            So I repeat, I was not asked about my ability to copulate on the marriage license. And yet I was permitted to marry.
            Ergo, whether/not I can complete the ‘marital act’ is inconsequential to whether/not I have a right to marry.

          • Tommy Valentine

            To ask this question would be an invasion of privacy, and it applies to almost no one.

          • JayD

            I agree it’s an invasion of privacy, so why is it your litmus test for determining whose marriage is recognized by the state?

          • Tommy Valentine

            It’s not, because the state must assume that all heterosexual couples are capable of intercourse.

          • JayD

            Having trouble isolating what your objection is – exactly – to ending marriage discrimination. It appears to have something to do with procreation, but who knows. In absence of clarity, I’ll just mark you as … because same-sex unions can’t get pregnant, they are not entitled to equal protection under the law. Close e’nuff?

          • Tommy Valentine

            Here’s the best summary – because same-sex unions can’t produce children, the government has no legitimate interest in recognizing them.

          • JayD

            So, the government has a compelling interest in recognizing children that do not exist??

          • Tommy Valentine

            Not understanding what you’re saying.

          • JayD

            Ditto

          • Tommy Valentine

            If you are of good will and genuinely interested in good public policy, I encourage you to read “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” by Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and Prof. Robert George of Princeton.

          • JayD

            I read Anderson’s work on the Heritage site. His positions are framed from personal biblical views, as are Robert George’s. And I will say again, if we are to justly deny equality to any group, it must be founded in something other than “my bible says …”.

            I agree with Anderson; marriage does play an important role in civil society because it encourages exclusivity and permanence. So if exclusivity and permanence are good for society … why the hard fight to limit access?

            The free choice of a spouse is a fundamental right. If the state legislatures can’t see this, then the courts will have to come in (again) and correct the wrong.

    • JerseyRed

      Let’s get something straight (no pun intended), but support of homosexual marriage goes against a BIBLICAL principle that the Republican Party felt the need to co-opt.

      The GOP needs to wake up and realize that being the party of God does nothing to expand our base, which is what we have to do to ensure our continuity as a party.

      • Tommy Valentine

        It goes against small government principles. Doesn’t have anything to do with the Bible.

        • JerseyRed

          So only same-sex marriage goes against small government principles? What about opposite-sex marriage? I guess that’s ok, because it’s been around.

          Doesn’t have anything to do with the Bible? Bullshit.

          • Tommy Valentine

            See my response to JReynolds79. If you are of good faith and genuinely interested in good public policy, I encourage you to look up Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation for arguments completely devoid of any Biblical basis. I also encourage you to read “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” by Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and Prof. Robert George of Princeton.

          • Warmac9999

            The number of social horrors associated with LGBT behavior is well documented. From hyper sexuality, to disease, to violence, to molestation, the statistics are against the embracing of homosexuality as normal. Trying to argue in a positive way about why homosexuality should not be embraced is a losing proposition because it almost always gets slammed on a biblical basis. Exposing facts, for example, the average active homosexual male has about 500 different male sexual partners during a lifetime exposes a level of hyper sexuality which most heterosexual males can’t even conceive of.

          • JerseyRed

            Right, because only LGBT people can be hyper sexual, have diseases, be violent and/or molest people. Let me ask you this, have you ever heard of a gay child molester? Most men that molest children are either married or extremely sexually confused. Those people do not, I repeat DO NOT constitute a remotely large group of the LGBT community.

            Secondly, whether you choose to believe it, being gay is not a choice. Period. End of story. Therefore, to discriminate against someone or not “embrace” them because of who they are is akin to racism and sexism.

            And finally, as for your fact about the “average homosexual male having 500 different male sexual partners during a lifetime,” it is true that a lot of men are whores. They will screw almost anything with a pulse. But that’s not exclusive to men, women or any group for that matter. Thus, that statement isn’t just irrelevant, it’s downright stupid.

          • Warmac9999

            Every single point you make is typical of the gay defense – and are convenient lies. The LGBT community is about 2+% of the population but about 1/4th to 1/3 of child molestations come from that community. Yet you hide this fact by claiming that the 98% of heterosexual men do the majority of molestations of boys.

            There is no evidence that homosexuality has a specific genetic foundation. A homosexual orientation may come from confusion in an evolving child’s brain or improper/inadequate nurturing as a child. As much as 8% of male children experiment with homosexual behaviors as adolescents, but the hard core in adulthood drops down to 2+% thus giving evidence to the lie fact that being gay is not a choice.

            We are talking about averages. You can find a wilt chamberlain who claim in a book that he had sex with nearly 20,000 women during his career, but we are talking about averages no outliers. Upwards of 1/4th of the homosexual male population admit to same sex behavior with thousands of different sex partners.

          • JayD

            OK, let’s take your ‘conclusion’ further. Statistically, men are the criminals; women rarely commit child molestation AND statistically seek out fewer partners than their more promiscuous male counterparts. If propensity for promiscuity / criminal behavior is your benchmark, then every sitting male legislator should be fired and replaced with a female … Yes, we could all feel much safer.
            Speaking of which, exactly how do lesbian couples fit in to your ‘analysis’. Or are you OK w/ legalizing lesbian marriage and supporting lesbian candidates and just not OK with guys marrying guys?
            My point – absolutely NONE of your arguments come anywhere close to justifying state sponsored discrimination.

          • Warmac9999

            You need to check the FBI statistics. Female crimes are pretty comparable to male crimes. And black on white crime is horrific – but I digress.

            The average lesbian has over 10 different sexual partners during her lifetime while the average heterosexual female has about 4. As far as justifying state discrimination, Virginians have spoken on this subject of homosexual marriage.

            Oh, by the way states and people discriminate all the time against antisocial behaviors – smoking, drug abuse, drunk driving, and lots of things that put people in prison or lead to the death penalty.

          • JayD

            Yes, they do .. But smokers, druggies, and drunks are NOT prevented from marrying. Nor are murderers, thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, or inmates. Even if I agreed with you that homosexuality was remotely related to anti-social behavior (I do not), the State doesn’t prevent anyone from marrying (above age of consent) EXCEPT homosexuals. Now I realize it’s historically human nature to degrade the group of ‘others’ you want to lock out (so we don’t feel shitty about ourselves) … but you haven’t come anywhere close to a GOOD reason why promoting state-sponsored discrimination is right and just.

          • Warmac9999

            Oh, by the way, lest we leave out a statistic, the average heterosexual male reports less than 10 different female sex partners and the average heterosexual female about 4 different male sex partners.

            My point is let the population at large decide if homosexuality is normal or more importantly good for advancing a better society.

          • JayD

            Yes, just like we depended upon George Wallace and the Alabama state legislature to desegregate Alabama schools. How well did that work? By next year, up to 17 states will have broken down barriers to same sex marriage. The Bible Belt south, as before, will be last to come on board and will need a push from Congress or the courts.

          • Warmac9999

            And every single state has done it through the courts or the legislature without the votes of the people. When the left cannot win in the social space they resort to political subterfuge. This country is in trouble because this constitutional republic is being replaced by a socialist administrative state where political correctness rules

          • JayD

            Oh puhleeze. You are misguided in thinking that this country and its people are static. At any one point in our history, “All Men” meant all white men that owned property; women were too emotional to be trusted with the vote; blacks were inferior by birth and too stupid; drunkards couldn’t marry; inter-racial unions were illegal …
            Each and EVERY time, those ‘against’ used biblical passage to resist change and each and EVERY time it took court action or legislation action to right the wrong.
            If this country is in trouble, it’s because of people with the mindset and absolutely certainty that ‘others’ are the enemy.

          • Warmac9999

            Please note that I specifically avoided any reference to biblical,passages and used only available facts, it is you who tried to convert the discussion to religion.

          • JayD

            You are correct. My apologies. Your position is that a statistical propensity to disease, promiscuity, etc. is the benchmark we should use to guard the marriage gates. If so, then the very bedrock of the nation’s founding documents REQUIRE that benchmark be applied to all persons equally. BTW, ‘statistically more likely’ ???

          • JayD

            You speak about what you don’t know. And like most, fear what you don’t know and hate what you fear. Your description of the LGBT community doesn’t fit at all with what I see every day, people just like you and me waking up each day doing their very best to provide for their children, their families, and their neighbors. You need to get out of your bubble (or pulpit) and stat books and into your wider community and see reality.

          • Warmac9999

            Your ultimate defense is anecdotal evidence which is subjective and therefore impossible to irrefute. Mine is statistical and study based which is as objective as anyone can be.

          • JayD

            Name one of your studies/ sources , that isn’t church group funded, that posits statistical analysis is reasonable foundation to discriminate. Just one.

      • midwestconservative

        A “BIBLICAL” principle both Parties’ felt the need to “co-opt” when they passed DOMA.
        You act as if “traditional marriage” was foisted upon the country by those evil socons. It wasn’t. It in fact has until about 2003, been completely unchallenged and supported by the vast majority of Americans, regardless of faith.
        And again, you also fail to recognize that socons make up over half of the party, that’s give or take a few anywhere from 16-24% of the electorate.
        EVEN when you run a moderate candidate he will be transformed into some radical witch burner ( example: Mitt Romney)
        You aren’t going to gain enough of the single “pay for my birth control” demographic to make up for all the socons leaving the party.

  • Downstater

    If the Republican party starts running and supporting Gay candidates than it might as well just stop calling itself the Republican Party anymore because it will cease to stand for any kind of values. If I wanted to support Gay (read left-wing) candidates, I would just vote Democratic. The Democratic Party is now the party of Gay Marriage and illegal immigrants, which is why I vote Republican. If it thinks it has to mimic the Dem. party on these fundamental issues, then who needs it?

    The writer of this article is wrong. The word “Gay Republican” is an oxymoron, and the party should not be encouraging or supporting the undermining of traditional marriage, which has been around for 10s of thousands of years, throughout all societies, in favor of a trend that has been cooked up by the left and is newer than the internet. Maybe if Gays hadn’t gotten so militant over the marriage issue, it would be a different story, but that is all they are about now.

  • Downstater

    Forbes is right and the writer of this article is wrong. This is another example of Gays screaming that their rights are being violated, when really, this particular issue involves a pool of money that is apparently ponied up by Congressional Republicans into a candidate pool, to be used to forward the campaigns of other Rep. candidates. An individual can give to whomever they choose, but how much “right” does a candidate have to demand money from the party when they are fundamentally against one of the main platforms of that party? How far do you think I would get if I declared I was going to run as a Republican who was in favor of abortion on demand, Gay marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, and thought Obama-care was just swell? Would I then have the right to demand financial support of the party?

  • Daniel Cortez

    Here is one (and I’ll bet there are millions more like me) independent opinion, on the need to promote, give serious consideration, give sympathy, advance, sponsor, champion, underwrite, or otherwise endorse ANYONE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT because they promote or support homosexual behavior ……THEY WILL NOT GET MY VOTE OR FINANCIAL SUPPORT. I do not care what a person does behind closed doors….STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY IMMORALITY AND RECOGNITION FOR DEVIANT BEHAVIOR and demand I accept their lifestyle.

    • Chad Parker

      How do you define “immortality” and “deviant behavior”?

      • Daniel Cortez

        Not worth a discussion or debate Chad. If you want to embrace, promote or advance this sick lifestyle between men knock yourself out. Just don’t expect my recognition or acceptance…

        • Chad Parker

          You made the comment. I’m simply asking you to define your terms. How do you define “immorality” and “deviant behavior”?

        • Chad Parker

          Rather than waiting for a response, let’s call it like we see it:

          Your beliefs of what is moral and acceptable social behavior are quickly becoming outdated. That’s fine. Though “I respect your passion, I just don’t agree with your logic. . .my personal moral code is for my family and yours or the lack of is for your family.” But it seems you want to continue to “alienate growing voter blocks with insensitivity as Republicans and. . .continue to drive away those badly needed votes.” Well, “[s]hame on you. That is the kind of comment that finds itself on a commercial or on the news causing your candidate immeasurable harm. Hate times hate equates to more hate. . .The outrageous historical legislation that was not refuted by Ken. . .caused the minority, veteran and independent vote to stay home or turn and run. We must be inspired and led by genuine leaders. . .We won’t advance until they get fresh blood with a modern plan for outreach and new ideas.. . .Those strident exclusionary voices . . .is what conservatism must not be if Republicans ever hope to win the mansion or senate seats again,” but “sadly the RPV refuses to develop a positive dialogue with minorities over issues significant to them.” You see, “[m]any who are independents [vote] their conscience based on the nation’s difficult history regarding [individuals] of all cultures. . .Your exclusion is noted and continues to be the hallmark of Republican arrogance. Not by all….but sadly too many.”

          “Times have changed….you can either change or face more of the same consequences. . .you could change with the times and promote inclusion and win or remain with the status quo. . .while howling at the moon and blaming everyone in sight for [your]
          inability to sell offensive candidates to the independents who control the vote. . .I fear those extremists moon howlers in our. . .party . . .who brought demise to the election will continue with their strident rhetoric and continue to drag the Republican party down into another defeat. You have correctly stated it’s time for the party to look inward for resolution. So must the. . .party. . .whose ideological rigidity and their lack of embrace turns away the independents who have supported. . .in principle. We should continue to support. . .but with civility refuse to support candidates who refuse to have a positive dialogue and the embrace to bring in the demographics needed to win. . .[a] mature and responsible strategy is needed to protect the conservative movement from the extremists who refuse to open their minds and hearts.

          Personally, “I’m for opening the wallet for candidates that promote inclusion….not exclusion,” because “I have never been one to believe in the rule of absolutes. . .Like the many many thousands like me in Virginia, we don’t need approval or a litmus test questioning [my] dedication or loyalty. . .a very decent gentleman who has the compassion and outreach to bring folks into the conservative ranks may be the future. . .It is my hope as one who desires to lean conservative in spite of the moon howlers, that future candidates can open their minds and hearts with positions that show embrace and build coalitions. The real question is can we find common ground and not deal with moon howlers who “demand” absolutes?”

          . . .see what I did there?

    • JayD

      Hmmm, sounds very much like ‘extremist moon howling’.
      Let me clue you in … no one cares about your acceptance nor wants to change your belief system. Just asking you to realize you don’t have the right to block someone else’s choice of spouse.

      • Daniel Cortez

        Ridiculous comments based on a weak attempt to legitimize a repugnant lifestyle. You care or you would not be “howling at the moon” for acceptance. End of discussion.

        • JayD

          Sarge, I’m white, heterosexual, and affluent. Don’t need your acceptance or approval. In fact, not that long ago the idea of “my kind” marrying “your kind” would have been unthinkable, disgusting, and yes – repugnant.

          Xenophobic? Of course. As are your posts

  • Chad Parker

    Anonymous comments in right-leaning blogs: the last refuge of rabid bigots and homophobes. I applaud DJ’s article as it gives hope for an inclusive Republican party focused on the day-to-day conservative issues that impact our lives, rather than ostracizing people because their actions aren’t in line with what your church calls “moral.”

    The problem with today’s party–the reason the Cooch lost, the reason EW Jackson was a joke from the start–is simple: we’ve become too adversarial. We refuse to take each issue independently, listen to all sides of the argument, and–using our knowledge, personal experience, and worldview–form an educated opinion. Instead, someone brings up an issue, something inside of us clicks, “hey, the party’s against that,” and we argue vehemently against it. That’s why you get ridiculous comments like “maybe if Gays hadn’t gotten so militant over the marriage issue.” Its also why individuals like Warmac can post unsubstantiated stats as worthless as whatever Family Foundation blog post they came from without so much as a link to source his information.

    With apologies to George Allen for the metaphor, politics is not a football game. Issues that impact our lives should not be a winner-take-all system whereby we blindly rally behind our team because they’re blue and we’re red. Instead, it should be a collaboration and discussion of all viewpoints, using our personal beliefs as a foundation for expressing our own opinion, and an acknowledgement and compromise beneficial to all sides.

    • Chad Parker

      On gay marriage specifically, if your moral belief system
      tells you its wrong you have every right to believe that, just as you
      have every right to believe adultery, interracial marriage, eating a
      chicken sandwich on Sundays, or forgetting to thank the old man in the
      sky for yesterday’s weather is wrong. It’s your God-given right to
      believe that, and you go right ahead. You even have the right to use
      those foundational beliefs to sculpt your own worldview and consider
      them when making your own decisions. You’re an individual and its your
      right. But as Republicans we believe that if rather than an individual,
      a government is dictating and legislating beyond its defined bounds,
      the government is wrong. The First Amendment guarantees your individual
      right to whatever belief system you want; but it also forbids the
      government from imposing that, or any other belief system, on the
      people. A government defining marriage based on a moral belief system
      is a classic example of “big government” overreach.

      • midwestconservative

        Cooch’s position on gay marriage was that he supported the VA constitution, and he left it at that. But for this he’s branded as “adversarial”
        Its not as if he demanded for the reinstatement of DADT or DOMA or a Federal Marriage Amendment.
        By Contrast, McAuliffe-Northam-Herring all campaigned on making the VA Constitution null and void. Not amending it to include gay marriage, but rather ignoring it via court action.
        This repugnant position which should’ve doomed all three from getting elected ( regardless of you support or opposition to gay marriage) was aided and abetted by those Republicans who think Virginia is somehow losing immigration do to opposition to gay marriage. hint: they aren’t.

  • midwestconservative

    This is Politico, How many “unnamed” sources did they have? My guess is that Forbes’ objection has something other then sexual orientation.
    Of course this is nice groundwork for Mark Warner’s opposition team should Forbes choose to run, regardless of the actual accuracy of this story.

    • JayD

      MidWest, Forbes was clear in his follow-ups; doesn’t want his $$$ used to support gay republican candidates.

      • midwestconservative

        Or just the two guys specifically.

  • midwestconservative

    If you were to poll Forbes’ district you’d probably find a large majority are opposed to gay marriage.