Writing for AFA, Joe Murray blasted Santorum for “guaranteeing that Ru-Paul's employment application is welcomed at his office”

AgapePress columnist Joe Murray attacked Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) for giving in to the “Buggery Blitzkrieg,” claiming that Santorum's initial signing of a sexual nondiscrimination letter from the Gender Public Advocacy Office guaranteed “that Ru-Paul's employment application is welcomed at his office.” Santorum later rescinded his signature from the letter.

In an August 7 column for AgapePress, a news service operated by the conservative American Family Association, Joe Murray, former American Family Association staff attorney and former national correspondence director for Pat Buchanan's 2000 presidential bid, attacked Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) for giving in to the “Buggery Blitzkrieg,” claiming that Santorum's initial signing of a sexual nondiscrimination letter from the Gender Public Advocacy Office (GenderPAC) guaranteed “that [drag queen pop star] Ru-Paul's employment application is welcomed at his office." Santorum joined 23 senators this month in signing the GenderPAC letter, asserting that he believes in equal opportunity for his homosexual employees. Less than a week later, Santorum rescinded his signature from the letter.

Murray wrote that by signing the letter, Santorum had “handed over the reigns [sic] of the debate to those he had been fighting for 12 years” :

Rick Santorum, the darling of the social conservatives and two-term senator clinging to his job like a shopper to a garment at a blue-light special, has signed the pledge guaranteeing that Ru-Paul's employment application is welcomed at his office; a pledge [Sen.] Arlen Specter [R-PA] has not even signed. In a single swoop of the pen, Santorum expunged the wisdom of Sun Tzu, and handed over the reigns [sic] of the debate to those he had been fighting for 12 years. Why?

Murray continued by declaring that Santorum and other “traditionalists” have been overrun, “not unlike the French in World War II,” by the “Buggery Blitzkrieg,” a term Murray coined to describe the so-called “homosexual lobby,” adding: “From Lawrence v. Texas [the 2003 Supreme Court decision that overturned an anti-sodomy law in Texas] to [San Francisco Mayor] Gavin Newsom's weddings by the bay, traditionalists were overwhelmed by the war that was unleashed on them.” Murray concluded: “At a time when the American public was fleeing same-sex nuptials' cause like George Michael a London park [sic], why would Santorum sign a propaganda pledge that bestows legitimacy to a cause Santorum has long fought? ... Why let the enemy impose his will on you?”

Less than a week after signing GenderPAC's letter, Santorum rescinded his signature. On August 9, his office faxed a new statement to GenderPAC declaring, “To be clear, my office has not adopted the proposed 'diversity statement' nor the agenda of your organization. ... My name should no longer be reported as having adopted the 'diversity statement.' ”

Murray, for his part, has made a virtual hobby out of coining military-inspired names for the so-called “homosexual lobby.” In his July 3 AgapePress column, he wrote: “The Sodomy Squadron has been flying high, for the Supreme Court has deemed sodomy a fundamental right, the Federal Marriage Amendment was DOA, and Massachusetts strong-armed the Catholic Church into ceasing its adoption program when it demanded that a Catholic agency allow same-sex couples to adopt children under the care of the Roman Catholic Church.”

From Murray's August 7 AgapePress column:

“The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy,” wrote Sun Tzu, “but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.” As the dust begins to settle on the battlefields that were home to a number of cultural skirmishes concerning the sanctity of marriage, one sees that the traditional marriage is forcing same-sex matrimony to retreat back into the closet from which it came.

[...]

GenderPAC, a group that describes its mission as promoting an “understanding of the connection between discrimination based on gender stereotypes and sex, sexual orientation, age, race, and economic status,” has been on the prowl for a few years now attempting to tear down the societal barriers established by “gender roles.” Translation -- this group seeks to rewrite the laws of nature, tamper with Mother Nature's recipe, and turn biblical gender standards on their heads. It also appears to be a front for the homosexual lobby.

In order to accomplish their mission, GenderPAC has unleashed a number of politically correct weapons from its public relations arsenal; one of them being a “diversity statement” that is to be signed by all the federal lawmakers in Washington, DC.

Since the “project” was conceived, GenderPAC has been roaming the halls of Congress seeking signatures at the bottom of its propaganda pledge. The pledge reads, "[t]he sexual orientation and gender identity and expression of an individual is not a consideration in the hiring, promoting or terminating of an employee in my office." Call it the Coco Peru clause.

Not surprisingly, the liberal left has responded to this pledge like Teddy Kennedy at a happy hour. Counted among the signatories are the typical “A list” lineup from the Left -- Hillary Clinton, Chucky Schumer, John Kerry, and Russ Feingold. Also included, quite fittingly, are your Democrats in drag Republicans, such as Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee.

But just this past week GenderPAC announced a new member had arrived at their gender-neutral gala, a member who potentially outshines all the other signatories on the list. Who is this bell of the ball? Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum, the darling of the social conservatives and two-term senator clinging to his job like a shopper to a garment at a blue-light special, has signed the pledge guaranteeing that Ru-Paul's employment application is welcomed at his office; a pledge Arlen Specter has not even signed. In a single swoop of the pen, Santorum expunged the wisdom of Sun Tzu, and handed over the reigns [sic] of the debate to those he had been fighting for 12 years. Why?

What does Rick Santorum have to gain by placing his John Hancock on this statement? Does he really think that the same homosexual lobby that has hitched its bandwagon to Bob Casey, Jr. is really going to mosey on over to the man who once compared the “fundamental right” of sodomy to incest and bestiality? Let's just say this author would not take those odds. Nevertheless, while Santorum's gains are known only to the disciples of Jeane Dixon, one thing can be ascertained -- what Santorum has cost his movement.

The Buggery Blitzkrieg that started in 2003 came fast and furious. Not unlike the French of World War II, traditionalists were quickly overrun and astonished at the lightening-fast strike that came from the homosexual lobby. From Lawrence v. Texas to Gavin Newsom's weddings by the bay, traditionalists were overwhelmed by the war that was unleashed on them.

Judge [Margaret] Marshall and her Massachusetts' Supremes added cover to the Buggery Blitzkrieg, permitting homosexual groups to go on the offensive, subvert the will of the people by way of the Judiciary, and force traditionalists to fight on the terms the homosexual lobby had established. But every blitzkrieg must meet its Battle of Britain, where its weakness is exposed and its tide reversed.

What was the weakness of the Buggery Blitzkrieg? Despite its fast and furious assault, it could not undo the laws of nature. While it is true that the attack initially leveled the walls protecting the institutions established to foster traditional marriage, such accomplishments began to disappear as quickly as they came.

At this point in American history, the people are not ready to toss out the fundamentals of our society -- at least not yet. The Buggery Blitzkrieg may have overrun society's institutions, but it was unsuccessful in winning society's heart. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the counteroffensive was successful.

[...]

Hence, the blitzkrieg having failed, the new strategy embraces a Lifetime lobbying effort; thus bringing us back to Santorum.

At a time when the American public was fleeing same-sex nuptials' cause like George Michael a London park [sic], why would Santorum sign a propaganda pledge that bestows legitimacy to a cause Santorum has long fought? Why bolster your opponents at a time when you have them on the ropes? Why let the enemy impose his will on you? This author knows no answer to these questions; one hopes Santorum does.