 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Click here
|
The Bush Administration's Republican Homosexual Agenda: The First 100 Days 5/31/2001 President Bush has not reversed Clinton orders dealing with homosexuality.
During the presidential campaign, George W. Bush courted Christians and other pro-family Americans by promising to restore family values and morality to the White House. The assurances worked; Bush received a large majority of the votes of self-identified evangelical Christians and a healthy percentage of the votes of pro-family Catholics and pro-family Protestants in mainline denominations.
Many pro-family Americans looked to the new President to reverse the pro-homosexual agenda of his predecessor, Bill Clinton—America’s first-ever pro-homosexual president. Millions of citizens viewed Clinton’s promotion of homosexuality as a symbol of the nation’s moral decline. However, in his first 100 days in the White House, Mr. Bush has not only failed to take any steps to overturn these policies but actually is supporting a “gay Republican” agenda.
In his first 100 days as President, Mr. Bush:
What follows is an outline of the Bush administration’s record on homosexual issues, beginning with remarks by vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney and continuing through the President’s first 100 days.
Perhaps pro-family advocates who suffered through eight years of promotion of homosexuality under Clinton were naďve to put their hopes in President Bush. After all, it was Bush who in April 2000—in a highly publicized campaign appearance—met with Republican homosexual activists in Texas and declared that he was a “better person” for having done so.1 A year later, it is apparent that Bush’s meeting with the “group of 12” set in place a policy of working closely with homosexual activist Republicans and appointing them to key positions in his administration.
From the outset of his campaign, Bush sought to mute opposition to the homosexual activist agenda to help him burnish a “moderate” image. When pro-family groups, upset at Bush’s meeting with homosexuals, sought a similar meeting (to include former homosexuals), the candidate’s staff refused, citing political considerations.2
As the GOP convention approached, the Bush team sought to create an image of “moderation,” which translated into hiding the party’s conservative pro-family leaders and any opposition to homosexuality. Bush picked Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson to represent him in the Republican platform hearings. (President Bush later chose Gov. Thompson as his Secretary for Health and Human Services.) Thompson met with homosexual Republican activists and then with pro-family leaders who demanded equal time. Though he assured the latter group that the Bush campaign cared deeply about their concerns, according to news reports he subsequently tried to strip the platform of several provisions (carried over from 1996) critical of homosexuality. Conservatives were able to reinstate the planks, such as one recommending against giving special legal protections based on “sexual preference” and another affirming that homosexuality is “incompatible with military service.”3
Bush further alienated conservative Christians by honoring a promise made to the homosexual “group of 12” to have an open homosexual speak at the GOP convention in Philadelphia. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona) gave a primetime address, as Christians from the Texas Republican delegation bowed their heads in prayer in a silent protest. The speech by Kolbe (though not on “gay” issues) rankled many pro-family advocates. They noted that the Bush team did not allow any primetime speeches by pro-life leaders such as Alan Keyes, whose orations thrilled the GOP faithful during the presidential campaign. Other Republicans endorsed the Bush strategy of not publicly aligning with the party’s morally conservative wing so as not to incur the wrath of moderates and the liberal-dominated media.
On the campaign trail, it was Dick Cheney—whose daughter Mary is an open lesbian—who pushed the envelope on homosexuality. At a news conference in Vermont, where voters were rebelling against an unpopular law giving marital benefits to homosexual “civil unions,” Cheney passed up an opportunity to criticize the law.4 Later, in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut), he was asked, “Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all … the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?” Instead of defending marriage and pointing out that homosexuals already have the same rights as other citizens, Cheney sounded libertarian themes and said different states would come to different conclusions in regulating homosexual “marriage.” Seemingly contradicting his running mate’s position in support of the Defense of Marriage Act and in opposition to homosexual “marriage,” Cheney said, “I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area … we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.”5 Cheney’s answer troubled family advocates, but drew little opposition from Republicans, who were desperate to end Democratic control of the White House and feared exposing Cheney’s softness on the homosexual issue.
The Bush campaign did not repudiate either statement by Cheney, thus signaling that opposition to the homosexual political agenda would not be a priority in his administration. In a subsequent presidential debate, Bush affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and he criticized “special rights” for homosexuals. But on more than one occasion he has said through a spokesman that Vermont-type homosexual “civil union” legislation is a “state issue.” The president thus threw away a great opportunity as a moral leader to encourage the states to protect marriage.
As the campaign proceeded, pro-family opponents of organized homosexuality grew increasingly apprehensive at Vice President Cheney’s sympathy for the “gay” activist cause. Homosexual activists used the Mary Cheney connection to lobby Republicans to abandon their opposition to their agenda.6 Mary Cheney’s lesbianism was hardly a secret. Working for Coors Brewing Company as a liaison to homosexual groups, she funneled corporate contributions to several homosexual activist organizations, including $110,000 to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)—a strident homosexual group that later led a mean-spirited crusade against Dr. Laura Schlessinger. GLAAD celebrates positive portrayals of homosexuality in Hollywood and the media, most recently heaping praise on the TV show Dawson’s Creek for featuring a five-second kiss between two young male characters.7 Mary Cheney also guided Coors to give $2,500 to Equality Colorado, the lead group fighting the state’s Amendment 2 ballot initiative, which would have banned laws giving special recognition to homosexuals as a class. Colorado voters approved Amendment 2 by a 55-45 percent margin in 1992, but it was struck down four years later by the U.S. Supreme Court, with David Souter—a justice appointed by George Bush, Sr.—voting in the majority.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Mary Cheney was her father’s senior policy advisor and described by him as his “aide-de-camp.”8 She attended the GOP convention and the presidential inauguration openly with her lesbian partner.9 Second Lady Lynne Cheney—after initially reacting angrily to a question posed by ABC newswoman Cokie Roberts about her daughter’s sexuality—has begun to use rhetoric favored by homosexual activists. She praised singer Elton John for supporting “equal rights” for homosexuals and defended the president’s appointment of a homosexual activist as “AIDS Czar.”10
Bush Steers Clear of Homosexual Issue, Keeps Clinton Policies
Initial indications are that the Bush administration will go to great lengths to avoid appearing “anti-gay.” At a press briefing on March 19, reporter Les Kinsolving asked White House spokesman Ari Fleischer if the President would endorse a Republican-led, lopsided vote in the Vermont Legislature banning homosexual “marriages.” The ensuing exchange shows how disinclined the President is to use his bully pulpit to defend marriage:
Q: … Vermont's House of Representatives has just voted 84 to 15 to outlaw same-sex marriages. Does the President agree or disagree with his fellow Republicans, so many of whom replaced Democrat representatives [who] voted for civil unions?
Mr. Fleischer: The President has always talked about states’ rights on issues even where he disagrees or, in some cases, agrees with states’ rights. The President has not weighed in.
Q: Isn't he going to support his fellow Republicans, Ari? He's not going to desert them, is he?
Mr. Fleischer: The President has made it clear on that issue that it's a state issue, even if he disagrees.
By using the rhetoric of “states’ rights,” Fleischer dodged yet another opportunity for the Bush Administration to show national moral leadership—without infringing on states’ rights in any way. Fleischer also chose not to comment on whether the President agreed with the decision of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York) to boycott New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade because it excludes groups that promote homosexuality.11
On at least two occasions, Fleischer and the Bush administration have implicitly endorsed Clinton’s Executive Order giving special protection for homosexual federal employees. These orders, like his other pro-“gay” edicts, were roundly criticized by pro-family groups when Clinton first announced them. But while Bush has moved to reverse or halt implementation of Clinton orders on a variety of other public policy matters, he has not done so on any dealing with homosexual activism. At a press briefing April 6, Fleischer was asked if Bush’s nomination of pro-family leader Kay Coles James as head of the Office of Personnel Management was problematic, because she would be required to enforce Clinton’s pro-homosexual nondiscrimination order. He responded: “I would not make any link between an appointment [of] somebody and a decision that the President would make on an executive order here, as far as White House personnel.”12
President Bush and his defense secretary also reportedly have affirmed that they will implement an “Anti-Harassment Action Plan” for homosexual soldiers. A Department of Defense working group announced the plan in July 2000. After a homosexual activist group, the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN), issued a report in March alleging pervasive harassment of “gay” soldiers, a military spokesman said that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would issue regulations to bar harassment of homosexuals.13 This must be seen in light of the fact that Congress passed a law explicitly upholding the ban on homosexuality in the military. Although under Clinton the Pentagon issued regulations that conflict with the law, homosexuals are still barred by law from entering the armed forces.
Despite vocal public outcry from pro-family advocates in both the United States and Canada, President Bush stood solidly behind his nomination of Massachusetts Gov. A. Paul Cellucci as U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Pro-family organizations, first in Massachusetts, then across the nation, opposed Cellucci due to his record as one of the most pro-homosexual governors in the United States. Cellucci, who was also opposed by pro-life groups upset at his pro-abortion stances, presided over the advancement of radical homosexual policies in Massachusetts public schools that subjected middle- and high school students to one-sided pro-homosexual seminars. Homosexual groups in Massachusetts had succeeded in winning state monies for their agenda under the previous Republican governor, William Weld, but Cellucci increased this taxpayer funding to $1.5 million annually. The governor’s pro-“gay” youth agenda exploded into a national scandal in March 2000, when a parent secretly taped a “Queer Sex” workshop at a conference sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The workshop, which was endorsed by the Massachusetts Department of Education and taught by three state employees, was advertised for “youth only” and exposed children as young as 12 to graphic verbal coaching on how to perform potentially life-threatening homosexual sex acts.14
Despite a widening lobby effort against Cellucci by a coalition of pro-family groups, no U.S. senator except Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) opposed him, and Bush made no move to reconsider the nomination. Press accounts and pro-family activists cited pressure from the Bush administration. This seemed to be confirmed by the conduct of the conservative stalwart Helms, who was famous for stopping liberal presidential appointments. The North Carolina senator offered only token opposition to the nomination, letting it proceed in deference to the new president. After a conservative protester disrupted the initial Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for Cellucci, his nomination was rushed through to avoid further protests by pro-family groups.15
President Bush appointed Wisconsin homosexual activist Scott Evertz to head up the White House Office on AIDS Policy. Many conservatives had hoped this agency would be disbanded—noting there are no special White House agencies for other diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer. The choice of Evertz, who was supported by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, seemed inappropriate because homosexual practices are the leading cause of AIDS in America. Moreover, Evertz had been quoted in the press as favoring such policies as drug-needle giveaways, condom distribution in schools, and homosexual “marriage”ľwhich not only constitute bad AIDS policy but contradict President Bush’s public stands. Fleischer defended Evertz, a leader of the Wisconsin branch of Log Cabin Republicans, saying: “The president picks the best people for their jobs, regardless of what their backgrounds may or may not be, and that is why he has chosen Scott. The president respects him. He will be welcome at this White House.”16
Evertz has no background in HIV research or other medical expertise surrounding the deadly virus.
Security and International Issues
President Clinton had earned homosexual plaudits when he issued his executive order barring consideration of “sexual orientation” in the issuance of top-level security clearances. While many hoped President Bush would restore a higher level of security by reversing the Clinton order, it was not to be. Bush recently reinforced the Clinton order through his own U.S. State Department, declaring that open homosexuality is not a security risk. A State Department memo declared, “Sexual orientation, in and of itself, may not be used as a disqualifying factor in determining a person’s eligibility for a security clearance.”17 This flies in the face of well-established security risk assessment standards.
The Bush administration also supported a homosexual activist organization’s request for official United Nations consultative status. Rick Williams, an advisor to the U.S. Mission to the U.N., spoke in favor of the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s (ILGA) application for “non-governmental organization” (NGO) status with the international body’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). In an interview, Williams said he “did not receive any guidance to the contrary” on his recommendation. The application was put on hold by several Muslim countries concerned about ILGA’s homosexual advocacy.18 ILGA, an umbrella group, gained notoriety in 1993 when it was revealed that the pedophile organization NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) was one of its members. ILGA also shared some of NAMBLA’s goals: among its proclamations (since rescinded) was its anti-parent support for “the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.” ILGA eventually expelled NAMBLA, but its U.N. consultative status was ended after the U.S. Senate passed an amendment that would have stripped $119 million in U.S. contributions to the world body unless American officials could certify that no U.N.-affiliated groups promote pedophilia.19
ILGA has a history of treating opposition to homosexual activity as a “human rights” violation. The organization crusades against anti-sodomy laws in various countries, including the United States, and supports laws lowering the age of sexual consent for homosexuals. It supports the legalization of homosexual unions and fights military homosexual bans in countries like the United States and Turkey. ILGA also lobbies the U.N. and other world bodies to celebrate homosexuality, e.g., calling for the creation of an “International Year of Lesbian and Gay People.”20
‘Gay’ Activist in the Pentagon
Bill Clinton’s attempt in the early days of his first term to open up the military to avowed homosexuals was a defining moment in his presidency and a source of intense public criticism that contributed to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. After a standoff with Congress, Clinton retreated and issued his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring open homosexuals in the armed forces. The administration’s loose guidelines are at odds with a stronger law banning homosexuality in the military, and actually have made it easier for “closeted” homosexuals to stay in the military.21 But since George W. Bush had endorsed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the campaign, it was widely expected that the Clinton-congressional compromise would continue.
But Bush’s Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, appointed a veteran homosexual activist, Stephen Herbits, to “screen job applicants” at the Pentagon.22 Herbits was hired as a “special consultant to the Secretary” of a department that officially bans homosexual soldiers. Human Events Online reports: “In a 1993 book review for the New York Times on the topic of homosexuals in the military, Herbits wrote: ‘No single issue more poignantly snaps our armed forces into the 21st century than the question of whether homosexuals should be permitted to serve openly in their ranks. Our military cannot afford to stray long from the society it defends; the pressures for it to catch up are mounting within and without.’”23
According to his biography on the Web site of a “gay”-oriented media company that once employed him, Herbits:
The Washington Post described Herbits as a “longtime friend” of Cheney. He performed similar duties vetting civilian personnel at the Pentagon for then-Secretary of Defense Cheney in the previous Bush Administration and worked with Rumsfeld in a previous Republican administration.
Although Herbits has donated to Republican politicians, he has made large contributions to Democratic candidates, according to Human Events Online:
Cammermeyer challenged a vulnerable GOP congressional candidate but lost her race. She is viewed as a hero by those seeking to open the military to homosexuality. Herbits was also a business partner with President Clinton’s high-powered homosexual activist friend, David Mixner (who once was arrested as part of a protest against the military’s “gay” ban), as well as William Waybourn, owner of the largest chain of homosexual activist newspapers in the country, including the Washington Blade. Waybourn formerly headed the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which raises money for open homosexual candidates for public office across the country to strengthen “gay” clout in politics.26
Prior to the Herbits controversy, Rumsfeld had said the issue of homosexuals in the military was not one of his priorities. On May 14, The Washington Times reported that Herbits soon would be leaving his consulting post under pressure from Republican senators who feared he was using his position to block conservative defense appointments. A spokesman for Rumsfeld denied that charge, and also denied that Herbits was leaving his position earlier than planned.27
Attorney General Courts ‘Gay’ Lobby
Former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, a staunch conservative and committed Christian, was nominated for Attorney General. But during his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft apparently bowed to administration pressure by downplaying his long-held opposition to homosexuality. He accepted the concept of “sexual orientation” as a civil rights category and discussed it in terms championed by homosexual activists.
Like Bush, Ashcroft has earned the tentative praise of homosexual activists. Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual activist group, declared in a February 22 news release: “In his confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, [Sen. John] Ashcroft stated repeatedly that sexual orientation will not be a consideration in Justice Department employment or appointments, that he would enforce all laws and regulations protecting gay and lesbian federal workers from employment discrimination, that the gay and lesbian DOJ [Department of Justice] Pride employee organization would continue to meet and organize in the department under his leadership, and that federal civil rights laws will be vigorously enforced.”28
Following his confirmation, Ashcroft chose the Log Cabin Republicans for his first official public meeting as the nation’s chief law enforcer—a move that lent legitimacy to a group organized around sexual misconduct that is still illegal in almost 20 states and is considered sinful by all major Christian denominations. (Curiously, Log Cabin staffers, in describing their meeting with Ashcroft, referred to their mostly white, male organization as a “civil rights” group.)29 Many pro-family advocates were stunned when Ashcroft chose to meet first with homosexual activists rather than a genuine minority group such as Blacks or Hispanics, whose support is needed by the Republican Party, especially in key states like California, Texas and Florida. He later met with the pro-family groups who had defended him during the confirmation process. They discussed enforcing the obscenity laws.
Bush’s and Cheney’s Pro-Homosexual Counselor
Another Bush confidant with significant pro-homosexual credentials is GOP strategist Mary Matalin, who is senior advisor to both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Matalin has adopted an increasingly strident position in favor of the Republican Party embracing homosexuality. Although she concedes that conservative Christians are good-hearted people, Matalin has demonized them by referring to religious critics of homosexual activism as “gay bashers” and “the Leviticus crowd.”30 During the campaign, she organized two fund-raising efforts on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans.
Matalin also is reportedly a leading force behind another pro-homosexual GOP group, the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC), which purports to be an alliance between homosexual and non-homosexual political leaders who want to end the GOP’s defense of traditional sexual morality. The day before Bush’s inauguration, Matalin was listed as a member of the Host Committee of a RUC breakfast, according to a press release by the group. One of RUC’s stated goals is to lobby for “a more moderate approach to gay and lesbian issues” in the GOP.31
A coalition of more than 35 pro-family and pro-life organizations opposed President Bush’s nomination of Paul Cellucci as Ambassador to Canada. They were ignored by the Bush Administration, which then proceeded to nominate Scott Evertz, a homosexual Log Cabin Republican activist, as “AIDS Czar.” On May 11, the Washington Blade, a newspaper for homosexuals, reported on a speech by Evertz to the Log Cabin Republicans, in which Evertz relayed a conversation he had with Mr. Bush:
Evertz said that, to his amazement, Bush switched gears briefly during the Oval Office meeting to talk about how he did among [g]ay voters in the 2000 presidential election.
“He said, ‘I did pretty well in the [g]ay community, didn’t I?’ I said, ‘Yes, Mr. President, you got a million votes, 25 percent of the [g]ay vote.’ And he said, ‘Yea.’ He had that look on his face and that glee in his eyes.”32
It is accepted political wisdom in political and media circles that Bush strategists believe pro-family supporters will tolerate disappointments because they have no choice but to support Bush rather than the Democrats. However, President Bush and his advisors are also famously concerned about “not alienating their base” of conservative and morally-concerned voters. They must consider that social conservatives regard the homosexual activist agenda as one of the gravest threats facing America. If the Bush administration continues to alienate these voters, they will be less enthusiastic about supporting him in the next election. And if the 2004 election is as close as last year’s, that could make Mr. Bush a one-term president, just like his father.
President Bush—who has endorsed the virtues of Christian morality in his own life and for the life of the nation—might consider the contrast between his emerging utilitarian approach courting homosexual Republicans and this advice from fellow presidential candidate Ambassador Alan Keyes:
Appendix: The Clinton Homosexual Agenda
Bill Clinton was America’s first-ever pro-homosexual president, and “gay” activists applauded him for his many “firsts,” including:
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
