[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H7100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague who just spoke from Connecticut 
is married to one of the best pollsters in this country. When she tells 
us that our ratings are at an all-time low for this century, I listen. 
I said: Stan is one of the best pollsters in this country; when you say 
our ratings are at an all-time low, I listen. It is a compliment. It is 
a compliment.
  Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the afternoon at some point, the 
majority leader has just approved it, I will rise to a question of 
personal privilege for 1 hour to discuss the truth over a Member of 
this Chamber on our side calling me a liar, a bigot, and a hater.
  I will set the record straight on one of the key reasons this Chamber 
is held in such low esteem. I will put into the record an editorial 
that tells us that the homosexual movement in this country does not 
want just tolerance; they want total acceptance.
  While we are trying to get through no same-sex marriage, how do we 
give spouse cards and pins to three male boyfriends in their forties 
and fifties?
  I am against giving China most-favored-nation status.
  Mr. Speaker, this excellent challenging report is from Lamda Report.

                             Silence-Defeat

       In this election year, we feel compelled to call attention 
     to an emerging political blunder we hope can still be 
     averted. It is about a political silence that's getting so 
     loud we suspect by the Fall it will be deafening.
       What is this resounding silence? The lack of thoughtful 
     criticism within the conservative movement and GOP circles of 
     the ``gay rights'' agenda. Although homosexual activism 
     continues to rub most Americans the wrong way--and shows no 
     signs of abating--we sense Republicans are running away from 
     the issue faster than Madalyn Murray O'Hair from a revival 
     meeting. There is a good chance the GOP will largely ignore 
     as a campaign issue President Clinton's extensive pro-
     homosexual record, including his recent endorsement of 
     intrusive legislation that would inject ``sexual 
     orientation'' into employers' hiring and firing decisions. 
     Even the Christian Coalition, we fear, may not use its 
     influence to make Clinton's pro-homosexual record a major 
     campaign issue in the upcoming election.
       Compounding the problem is a skillful homosexual propaganda 
     strategy that labels anyone who opposes ``gay'' activism an 
     ``extremist'' or a ``bigot.'' It is no accident that the pro-
     gay group PFLAG has targeted Christian Coalition founder Pat 
     Robertson with its $625,000 ad campaign linking Christian 
     leaders with heinous violence and suicidal youth (see page 
     8). And now the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual lobby, 
     has proclaimed that three GOP presidential contenders--
     Buchanan, DORNAN, and Gramm--are ``HRC-designated 
     extremists''. (page 12)
       Let's see: Phil Gramm, anti-gay extremist. Can there be any 
     doubt such reckless hyperbole is meant to intimidate critics 
     and stifle debate?
       We are hardly shocked that the homosexual lobby would 
     attempt to marginalize its foes, but it is telling that even 
     some ``pro-family'' leaders would stigmatize those intent on 
     countering ``gay'' activism, or are at least shying away from 
     this critical issue. Two years ago, Bill Bennett sent an 
     ominous signal when (speaking at a Christian Coalition 
     convention) he chastised conservatives who ``obsess'' on 
     homosexuality. The much respected Bennett was dead wrong in 
     this case. What he did was the political equivalent of 
     scolding pro-life groups for fixating on the fetus. Yet his 
     putdown spoke volumes about the way Washington insiders, 
     versus everyday Americans, perceive this troubling issue.
       We understand why Bennett, like many Washington politicos, 
     would rather downplay homosexual-related matters. 
     Unfortunately, gay activists aren't so accommodating. In 
     fact, they are spending millions to, in effect, normalize the 
     homosexual lifestyle. A decade ago, their call was for 
     tolerance. Now, as Candace Gingrich puts it, ``Tolerance is 
     not enough!'' Gay leaders--including the Log Cabin Federation 
     of gay Republicans--are uniting begin a massive campaign to 
     legalic homosexual ``marriage.'' In the face of such 
     resources and dedication, and a ``cultural elite'' eager to 
     promote homosexuality at every turn, it is utter folly for 
     conservatives to ignore the issue. Worse yet are those GPO 
     leaders like Mary Matalin and Jim Pinkerton who are actually 
     championing ``gay'' causes (p.5).
       In politics, the side that is willing to champion its cause 
     confidently is the side with momentum, the side headed for 
     victory. By that standard, gay activists surely have the Big 
     Mo. Misguided as their mission is, at least they believe in 
     it enough to defend it with gusto. In contrast, many on the 
     Right seem to wish the ``gay'' issue would just go away. It 
     won't. We see a parallel with abortion politics. In recent 
     elections it seemed ``pro-choice'' candidates were always 
     willing to boast of their position, while ``pro-life'' 
     politicians often hid theirs or avoided the issue. Silent 
     support is better than nothing, but if GOP leaders fall to 
     engage the issue intelligently now, they will be unprepared 
     when the ultimate ``gay rights'' battle--``marriage''--beats 
     up.
       We sympathize with groups like Christian Coalition for not 
     wanting to appear like they are ``bashing'' homosexuals, but 
     rather are reacting defensively to homosexual activist 
     demands. Unfortunately, it seems like some important groups 
     are not even playing solid defense--much less doing anything 
     to seriously thwart homosexual activist goals. Witness the 
     pallid response of the pro-family movement to the judiciary's 
     rush to bless homosexual adoptions. And Big Tent or no Big 
     Tent, it certainly didn't bode well when Log Cabin's Rich 
     Tafel praised Ralph Reed's ``Contract with the American 
     Family'' as a ``step in the right direction'' (it ignored gay 
     issues).
       Truth, is many homosexual activists regard anything against 
     their agenda as ``gay bashing.'' Of course, most religious 
     conservatives are not ``bashers''; they merely oppose the 
     promotion of homosexuality--by the state, in schools, or in 
     the culture. To profoundly disagree with an agenda, 
     especially on religious grounds, is not to HATE. So, 
     conservatives: get over your misplaced guilt and face up to 
     this movement that is on the verge of radically altering two 
     pillars of American society: marriage and family.
       Bill Clinton is the most--indeed, the only--pro-homosexual 
     president in U.S. history. His most unpopular act among 
     voters was his attempt to allow homosexuals in the military. 
     If Republicans fail to make his pro-gay record a part for the 
     `96 campaign, or carefully avoid discussing the H-word, they 
     will not only miss a political opportunity but they will have 
     helped enshrine the ``gay'' political agenda--including 
     ``marriage''--into U.S. law.

                          ____________________