A Christian group has chastised U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, as “an arrogant, anti-family, homosexualist extremist” for becoming the first Republican in Congress to co-sponsor legislation to repeal the federal ban on gay marriage.
“We’re putting her and all other Republicans on notice that if they’re going to represent themselves as Republicans, they’ve got to respect the party platform,” said Anthony Verdugo, executive director of the Christian Family Coalition in Miami-Dade County.
... Verdugo said Ros-Lehtinen’s conservative constituents are not happy. “When they voted for Ros-Lehtinen, this isn’t what they signed up for,” he said.
Ros-Lehtinen was among 342 “yes” votes for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Now, she has become the 124th co-sponsor of the bill to repeal it.
21 Comments
“an arrogant, anti-family, homosexualist extremist”
And they wonder why they are labeled haters...
If it's wrong to call someone "homosexualist," is it also equally wrong to call someone "heterosexualist?"
NOM's headline is wrong. I strongly question whether Ros-Lehtinen ran as a "supporter" of DOMA, because she's long been an advocate of GLBT causes. According to the linked article, by 2003 she supported inclusion of GLBT people in hate crimes legislation and anti-disciminatory legislation. She also has supported increased funding for HIV prevention and has also supported repeal of DADT. I think her constituents know where she stands on these issues.
Her situation reminds me of a "house divided, which cannot stand."
"Let the people vote" will keep DOMA enshrined in our country's laws. Of course, we still need to get that constitutional amendment because that will be next to impossible to overturn.
The arrogance of homosexualist extremists in their attacks on vital principles of human society does leave them open to being called haters,yes.
At the present time,most homosexualists are heterosexuals,but even homosexuals ought to know better than to be homosexualists (i.e. advocates of the treatment of homosexual relationships as if they were unobjectionable).
NOM needs to help find a credible candidate in addition to writing about it to remove this awful representative that we have been stuck with for decades. This lady shows nothing but contempt for her constituents with these extreme radical positions.
They're not 'extreme, radical positions', unless you're willing to call half the country extreme and radical.
By the way, there is - or should be - far more to the Republican party than socially conservative 'values'. The Republican party is about small government, and fiscal conservatism too. In fact, proper traditional Republicanism is as far from social conservatism as you can get. Social conservatives want to make government as big as they can - getting into our bedrooms, telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Republicans have, in the past, wanted the opposite - making government as small as possible, in the pursuit of freedom, as they see it.
Great comments Grace. As one of the early founders of the Log Cabin Club, I could not have said it better myself.The Radical right wing religious nuts who dominate the GOP are all about small government except when it comes to forcing their beliefs on others then they want the Government to be large and strong
The Republican party wants their government really, really small. So small, in fact, it can fit inside your bedroom.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by all the homosexual supporters posting here. The truth is social conservatives DO NOT want bigger government and we are not radicals or extremists and we are infact more than half the population. The minority is the atheists who want to push their agenda down our throats and force us to accept as normal what is clearly unnatural. Something can be common and yet abnormal. Normal isn't the same as natural and it certainly isn't the same as common. Homosexuality is common in society -true! Alcoholism and obesity are common in society also, but we don't try tell everyone to act as though they are normal, natural, or good! Homosexuality is contrary to the natural order of things (commonly known as the natural law.) It's time we start recognizing that the natural law indicates what is BEST for society and that is what social conservatives want encouraged by society. They DO NOT want to live in an amoral society where their children and grandchildren will be subject to the consequences of immoral behavior. You may disagree with that position but at least have the decency to address it and not the lame liberal propaganda!
So, John what do you think the eligibility requirements for marriage should be?
After become aware of this extreme radical position taken against families and children several members of my family who have been indifferent to this awful representative in the past are now determined to vote her out. While not members of the Christian religion we know an anti-family, anti-children politician when we see one. We need NOM to help find a good one since we have had this awful representative for decades. I even voted for the democrat last election out of protest for the lack of republican opposition.
John Garrett,I am a non-religious Democrat.I don't care what goes on inside the bedroom,only that a couple treated as married going into a bedroom together be of opposite sexes.
Bruce: As usual, you argue from preconceptions -"NOM's headline is wrong." You offer no facts to show such a conclusion. One can support HIV treatment programs, and still believe consensual civil marriage between a man and a woman is perfectly Constitutional (State or Federal). All supporters of NOM are against discrimination, in the legal definition of the word "discrimination". Your rhetoric shows through
-John Garrett We dont care about what goes on in the bedroom, trust me. Homosexuality was illegal in my state of Texas up until 2003 and I thought that was ridiculous. Even though my church says it is wrong, the church has no right to tell people how to live their lives in private.
But the people have the right to define marriage and so far in most states including California and Oregon, traditional marriage has been upheld.
Mikhail, good point. They act as if marriage is merely a bedroom matter, when it is a government-regulated institution.
Grace, John, and Evolve, I would say that gay marriage is an expansion of government. It makes no sense to say: "the government should be small, but we want to involve it in relationships that are of no concern to the public."
Actually the elgibility requirement for marriage are: two people (1) of legal age (2) unmarried (3) of opposite gender and (4) not closely related by blood. Funny (not funny ha ha; funny peculiar) how people embrace "traditional republicanism (is that really a word?) but not traditional marriage.
Primary challenge needed. Lose in general election? Hope not, but one seat is worth it to maintain party discipline on an issue that can destroy Western Civilization.
Les,
Thank you for adding to the call for a primary. I have lived in the district my whole life and for the last couple decades we have had to put up with this awful representative who shows nothing but contempt for her constituents. Now she has taken these extreme radical positions as a further sign of arrogance. NOM really needs to help find a good alternative and this is a district which has strong family values, especially among the Cubans who are very religious. I voted for the democrat last election as a protest to this awful representative, now my family while not of the Christian religion has all decided to vote against her for this offensive attack on families.
Here you go, Bruce: http://www.nomblog.com/14599/
'Ros-Lehtinen was among 342 Yes votes for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.' Would you like to make any other guesses?