Gay Patriot Header Image

More Foley Fallout: The Gay GOP Witchhunt Begins

**UPDATE BELOW** Welcome readers from Instapundit, The Corner and Mary Katharine Ham!

From liberal blogger David Corn (of The Nation and “outing Valerie Plame” fame) comes this disturbing development in the Foley saga.

There’s a list going around. Those disseminating it call it “The List.” It’s a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.” The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.

I have a copy. I’m not going to publish it. For one, I don’t know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don’t fancy outing people–though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.

What’s interesting about The List–which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications–is that (if it’s accurate) it shows that some of the religious right’s favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices? After all, Santorum in a 2003 AP interview compared homosexuality to bestiality, incest and polygamy. It would be rather big of Santorum to employ a fellow who engages in activity akin to such horrors. That is, if Santorum knows about his orientation.

Let’s be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. (GP Ed. Note – So are most Liberal Chestbeaters…. calling Bob Beckel!)

But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets–even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions–as they probably already have–for if I have a copy of The List, there’s a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone.

Full citizen? No party has the power or right to tell me I am a full citizen. Supporting or opposing gay marriage does not make you a hypocrite. It makes you question the policy on its face. I am a full citizen thanks to the US Constitution.

Did it ever occur to Mr. Corn that the representatives and Senators he mentions that may or may not have gay staffers do not care about their sexual orientation yet value their participation as public servants? Is it not rational that you can hire a gay staffer, but at the same time oppose PUBLIC POLICY POSITIONS that you are morally or philosophically opposed to without being labeled a homophobe?

Perhaps Mr. Corn is ignoring the fact that most gay conservatives identify more strongly in our American Identity than our Gay Identity. Did that ever cross your mind, Mr. Corn? Probably not since you seem to have had no problem outing a CIA agent and then letting others take the fall for your actions.

I am not surprised that this is where we are headed. But my question is…. why have our national gay organizations (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) not stepped in to stop this witchhunt which originated on the Gay Left in the first place? I think we know the answer. Tolerance and diversity of opinion is a one-way street for the Gay Liberals and their masters in the Democrat Party.

By the way, the only people that are advancing or talking “The List” that I’ve seen are Liberals! And that List was begun by Gay Leftists years ago.

This witchhunt has got to stop.

**UPDATE** The first casualty of the Gay GOP Witchhunt has occurred. Forced out by Democrats politicizing the Foley Affair. Statement by Kirk Fordham, Rep. Reynolds Chief of Staff…

“I have resigned today from Congressman Tom Reynolds’ office. It is clear the Democrats are intent on making me a political issue in my boss’s race, and I will not let them do so.

I want to clarify a few things: When I sought to help Congressman Foley and his family when his shocking secrets were being revealed, I did so as a friend of my former boss, not as Congressman Reynolds’ Chief of Staff. I reached out to the Foley family, as any good friend would, because I was worried about their emotional well-being.

At the same time, I want it to be perfectly clear that I never attempted to prevent any inquiries or investigation of Foley’s conduct by House officials or any other authorities.

Like so many, I feel betrayed by Mark Foley’s indefensible behavior. Again, I will not allow the Democrats to make me a political issue in my boss’s race, and I will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.”

Where will it end?

[RELATED STORY – Ace Of Spades sees the dawning of liberal “conversion camps” for those pesky gay conservatives who have slipped off the plantation.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): The Malcontent‘s Robbie had a good followup post and describes it as Torquemada Ascendant. Just read the whole thing!

Share

148 Comments

  1. Bruce, nice attempt to smear progressives but what part of the following don’t you get:

    “there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.”

    It’s your own House repubs who have the long knives out for gay Republican staffers.

    “This witchhunt has got to stop.”

    Tell that to your GOP leaders. I’m sure they’ll listen to you.

    Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - October 4, 2006

  2. Wrong Ian. “The List” was created by progressives over the course of the past several years.

    Read Corn’s posting very closely. He never says REPUBLICANS are using the List, does he?

    His posting clearly states the List was drawn up by “gay politicos”. What gay politico (aka – operative) do you know that is a Republican?

    Get a grip.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 4, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - October 4, 2006

  3. Bruce, I think just a couple of points are missed. Then again, it could simply have to do with point of view.

    Now, I am a Democrat, but I won’t GOP-bash. I think each party has certain ideals that resonnate with each of us on a personal level, thus our political affiliations.

    The text, I interpreted to mean that gays and lesbians are full citizens, but are not treated like full citizens by GOP members who oppose gay rights. I think a more accurate statement would be any person who is opposed to gay rights issues will treat members of the community per their own personal beliefs.

    If we’re all human beings, why must we compartmentalize parts of ourselves? Why must a person have an American identity and a gay identity? Aren’t those two aspects of the same person? I would think that one’s experiences based on who one is have a profound affect on one’s American experience.

    I would think a Senator would value an openly gay staffer’s input because there is a unique point of view. I think one’s orientation does matter because it’s a unique part of a person’s being. It’s not all of who one is, but…Isn’t the whole only as good as the sum of its parts?

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - October 4, 2006

  4. Message from a ‘Values Voter’…

    Wednesday, October 4: The “witch” hunt is on. No comment.
    Update (10/3): Dennis Hastert is digging in. By the way, don’t be surprised by the depravity of this scandal. Man is capable of much, much worse.
    (Note: You may read and d…

    Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — October 4, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - October 4, 2006

  5. Aw, c’mon. You may have noticed that other than a comment here or there, the Democrats aren’t the ones who are pushing this Foley affair farther along… to blame them for Fordham’s resignation is ridiculous. He ‘resigned’ because he was caught up in the middle of a major sexual scandal, and he belongs to the party which consistently touts their moral superiority as a primary reason that voters should keep them in office.

    There will be more on the way out, I suppose you will blame that on Democrats as well….

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - October 4, 2006

  6. Gay groups are no more interested in obstructing the persecution of Foley than ‘Feminist’ groups are of improving women’s rights in Islamic countries, or giving America credit for improving the condition of women in Afghanistan.

    Here is more on the true agenda of the fifth-column left.

    Comment by Twok — October 4, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - October 4, 2006

  7. James-

    Exactly who is given the authority and what topics define “gay rights“?????

    I feel no different as a gay man growing up to be successful in America than if I were straight, frankly.

    Just because the Congress (under BOTH Democrat rule for 40 years and GOP rule for 12) haven’t passed legislation on certain gay issues makes me NO LESS OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

    Opposing gay marriage on policy and/or personal moral grounds does NOT necessarily make you homophobic or warranting becoming part of a witchhunt.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 4, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - October 4, 2006

  8. Excuse me???? Fordham a victim of the “Gay GOP Witchhunt?” NO…Fordham was axed for COVERING FOR A PEDOPHILE!!!

    Comment by Michael — October 4, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - October 4, 2006

  9. I have to say that “progressives” is a misnomer, particularly in this case. For a group of people that let this sort of thing slide in their own party, they sure want to burn people at the stake when it comes to Republicans.

    And I find nothing “progressive” about a party that houses ex-members of the KKK (Byrd) or Senators that aren’t held accountable to deaths they caused (Kennedy).

    They’re playing politics, pure and simple… and it really shows you were their “values” are.

    Comment by deanj — October 4, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - October 4, 2006

  10. David Corn is scum. This is pure and unadulterated liberal crap that says…”win at ANY cost”. Too bad Corn, along with his liberal friends, don’t exhibit the same commitment to fighting terrorism. I am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist but wow, something stinks real bad and I believe it is rotting corn.

    Comment by Benj — October 4, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - October 4, 2006

  11. Yes, it has to stop. I do, however, think it would be better if they simply came out voluntarily. Treating this like Hollywood, where people pretend they don’t know isn’t doing anyone any favors.

    I would caution that what Rogers did to you is different from this. You were and are innocent. But if there are people covering this up that is a problem. I also don’t think it stops with gay GOPers. Hastert and the page board guy failed themselves. They didn’t need gay people to help them. And the GOP shouldn’t scapegoat gay GOPers if it will save Hastert and the rest.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 4, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - October 4, 2006

  12. Corn is portraying the issue as unnamed Republican staffers believing that there is some gay mafia conspiracy in the Republican Party that protected Foley, and that the Republican paranoids are basing their fears on a list of supposedly gay Republicans that gay leftists circulated. Obviously, such conspiracy theories presuppose that all gay Republicans knew about Foley’s sexual misconduct and actually took steps to further the misconduct. That’s a stretch to say the least.

    So, supposing that there are lavender mafia conspiracy theories gripping the Republican Party on the Hill, that is indeed a horrible development, but I want more evidence of that than the whisperings of David Corn or Gloria Borger. And, furthermore, if such conspiracy theories have credibility, the gay left should not think that the conspiracy theories would scathe gay Republicans only and not gay Democrats or gay leftists. When gay leftists bait the bear, they should not be surprised when they are mauled once it escapes its cage.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - October 4, 2006

  13. Geez, that’s not McCarthyite or anything, is it?

    It’s a shame how the very same people who claim to respect and embrace homosexuality will also delight in using it to demonize their opponents. It’s also a shame they think that any homosexual who counts himself as a Republican should be demonized. It almost makes you wonder about the sincerity of their positions.

    Comment by BR — October 4, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - October 4, 2006

  14. I would like to see all of the gay aides, both Repubs and Dems, stand in unity on the front steps of the Capitol and say that what Foley did was wrong; and that REAL homosexual patriots that work in goverment DON’T engage in “skirt-chasing” after teenage boys!

    They should also say that we ALL are tired of stereotypes portrayed by homophobic bigots within BOTH political camps that being gay and pedophilia goes hand-in-hand. It is because of anti-gay hatred that guys like Foley are able to prey upon those under them because perverts hide behind the rainbow of gay pride when they are caught and say to those judging them, “Hey! I do what I do because I was BORN like this!” or “I can’t help touching kids because I was ‘touched’ by a priest when I was one!”

    I’m gay AND I am a incest survivor…and I have NEVER wanted to molest a child in my entire life! Pervs like Foley are trying to use the same tactic that MANY pedophiles in prison use to justify what they did to their victims. What Foley is doing is just plain WRONG! He is just trying to use the same “ploy” that McGreevey used when he was “outed”.

    Foley has become the Republican version of George Michael: “I’m gay and this is my CULTURE! So (bleep) OFF!”

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 4, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - October 4, 2006

  15. #5: “There will be more on the way out, I suppose you will blame that on Democrats as well….”

    Of course he will! That’s exactly the approach being taken – Faux News has even gone so far as to identify Foley as a Democrat! It wasn’t just an innocent error since it happened several times.

    Bruce and the rest of the GOP apologists will continue to ask you to suspend belief and accept the alternate “reality” that this is all the Dems’ fault. But the truth is clear: Foley has been doing his page thing for years, the “Foley Five” have known about it and done their best to keep it under wraps so they could hold onto a House seat – the wellbeing of the pages be damned. They even went so as to keep the Democrat on the Page Board in the dark about the whole thing.

    Kirk Fordham’s pathetic attempt to blame the Dems is risible in light of the evidence that he tried to bribe the reporters into not making public the sexually-explicit IM’s. It’s looks very much like he’s been thrown under the bus http://tinyurl.com/zb9k5 and that’s by Repubs not Dems.

    Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - October 4, 2006

  16. This episode sort of explains why conservatives are happier than leftists, eh? Leftists are driven only by the destruction of those who reject their ideology. They do nothing else whatsoever. When is the last time they actually talked about IMPROVING something?

    Comment by Tudalu — October 4, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - October 4, 2006

  17. Don’t you think the real difference is the base. When a Dem does something disgracful, the leaders and the base rally round and say hey he’s our guy and if anything they get promoted. When Republicans do bad things they leave, sometimes pushed out.Why? Because the Republican base wants this type stuff cleaned up. Lesson….You wanna be a creep, Clinton, Reynolds, Studds, Frank, Jefferson, be a Democrat. They get protected and keep their jobs.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 4, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - October 4, 2006

  18. If the GOP staffers start getting outed and fired, I hope they retailiate by outing the closeted Democratic staffers and House/Senate members of BOTH parties…especially the closeted married-creeps with kids and a minivan with soccer stickers. Let’s get this all out in the open in one gigantic f**king Armageddon!!

    As for the LCR, there has been no leadership since there are no leaders at LCR Natl; no national president, no political director, no field director, no communications director, nor even an exec. director to run the office and field the calls from the press. The LCR National Board has failed to fill any of the vacancies created in the last 18-months…..

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 4, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - October 4, 2006

  19. I agree that what appears to be a brewing witchhunt against gay GOP Hill staffers is a terrible idea. First of all, it smacks of ruthlessness and overzealotry, which I thought liberals opposed when they observed it coming from Bush & Rove. Second, the quality of Hill intelligence that gay rights activists have come to take for granted would decrease significantly in the event of a mass gay purge on the Republican side of the aisle, because it would destroy the network of staffers who keep one another informed on legislative developments.

    Comment by Richard J. Rosendall — October 4, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - October 4, 2006

  20. It looks like Kirk Fordham claims that he warned Hastert about Foley’s behavior two years ago. If that claim pans out, then I don’t see how Hastert can survive as Speaker. Events are moving swiftly.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - October 4, 2006

  21. To answer your question: it isn’t rational to be gay and support public policies that limit gay rights.

    Comment by jpe — October 4, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - October 4, 2006

  22. Hahahahahahaha….

    A Republican ephebophile (who also happens to be gay) gets caught having internet sex with a teen on the House floor. The Republican leadership, including the head of the Page Committee are informed, and do nothing for months. In fact, they keep it secret from the one Democrat on the Page Committee. The Justice Department ignores it.

    Then, when the story breaks, your family values advocates conflate a pathology with a sexual orientation…and you blame the “progressives” for reporting the scandal and making political hay with it.

    Calling George Orwell! Calling George Orwell!

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - October 4, 2006

  23. We can all agree that Foley’s behavior was unbecomAnd I thought black activists throwing Oreo cookies at blacks who happen hold conservative ideals was nasty.

    We can all agree that Foley’s behavior was unbecoming a public servent, good that Foley resigned but I have to say that this attack by gay activists against Foley because was a Republican not having outed his gay is vicious. In another time gay activists would be screaming at the top of their lungs “16 is the age of the consent and it nobody’s business what a person does in their private lives!!!!!”

    If a text message between a 16 year old male and a 50 year old male is this outrageous to gay activists then the gay community will no doubt be making some MAJOR lifestyle changes.

    Does this mean the beltway cruise scene in Washington will be abruptly coming to an end?

    Comment by syn — October 4, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - October 4, 2006

  24. How can you even TRY to make Fordham a martyr?

    Drudge has this guy working with Hassert and ABC to try and suppress the IM’s.
    That is not the democrats, its this guy trying to keep hidden the sleaze of Foley by trying to work Hassart and ABC.
    Once this got out, of course he resigns.

    Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - October 4, 2006

  25. Bruce, nobody has be given the authority to define “gay rights.” Different individuals feel differently about some of the things LGBT persons seek (marriage recognition, domestic partner benefits, the ability to serve openly in the Armed Forces), and those feelings are attributable to a number of different factors.

    How do you know if you feel any differently being a gay man who’s grown to be successful in America as opposed to being a straight one? I don’t meant to sound like a smart ass, but I’m curious to know your basis for comparison.

    I apologize that I was not clearer before. I’m fully aware that we are all American citizens, and I acknowledge that Congress under both Democratic and Republican rule have failed to pass key pieces of legislation that would positively affect the community. My point was, however, that what one is and how one is treated are two different things, and affects one’s experience as an American.

    There is not excuse for a witchhunt. However, if one looks at the suffix in the word “homophobe”…well, a person who opposes gay marriage based on policy or personal beliefs might not truly be gay hating, but what about gay fearing?

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - October 4, 2006

  26. To those who say Republicans oppose homosexual rights- you have it wrong. They oppose special privileges and preferential treatment for any one group.

    As for a Democrat campaign to out gay coonservatives- I’m not surprised. They claim to be pro-gay, but are not above the ‘gay smear’ if it means a chance to defeat a political opponent. John Kerry knew exactly what he was doing in that presidential debate when he ‘just happened to mention’ that Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay.

    And finally, about the charge of homophobia in general. As a straight guy, I can tell you that most Americans understand that there are gay people in the world. We just wish you would stop shouting it from the rooftops and throwing it in our faces at every opportunity. Go live your life! Be gay! Just quit beating us over the head with your choice, is all we’re saying.

    Comment by Barry — October 4, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - October 4, 2006

  27. “be” in the first sentence above should read “been”.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - October 4, 2006

  28. The Foley Scandal to Turn Into An Outing Campaign?…

    I just asked someone on IM just now what he thinks the over-under is on when “The List” hits the Left blogs.
    I blogged about this earlier today:
    And, the liberal blogosphere may be itching to go all “Michael Rogers” on the GOP. You know, because….

    Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — October 4, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - October 4, 2006

  29. Barry, being gay is not a choice. And while some gay activists do shout their orientation from the rooftops, many gays don’t. I think it might seem like people are being beat over the head with it because, for the first time in history, we demand acceptance rather than ridicule.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - October 4, 2006

  30. What does Fordham getting fired or quit have to do with GAY GOP witchunt?
    He quit for protecting Foley.
    At least be honest in your statements.

    Comment by boston — October 4, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - October 4, 2006

  31. I assure you, THIS is a typo:
    coonservatives

    sorry!

    Comment by Barry — October 4, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - October 4, 2006

  32. ABC News is reporting that Kirk Fordham, the same individual you try to cast here in a sympathetic light, tried to cut a deal with them in exchange for not publishing the transcripts of the IM conversations. ABC refused any such deal.

    I wonder who’s idea that was?

    Comment by Chase — October 4, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - October 4, 2006

  33. “And while some gay activists do shout their orientation from the rooftops, many gays don’t…..for the first time in history, we demand acceptance rather than ridicule.”

    Unless you’re a Republican. Then you’re irrational, your names goes on a list, and David Corn gets all giggly about outing you for the purposes of humiliation.

    Comment by BR — October 4, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - October 4, 2006

  34. I know people who are friends personally with Kirk and who, like myself, differ in their political views from Kirk, but who all agree that he is a genuinely nice guy. That said, I won’t bad mouth him for being gay and working for some of the people he has chosen to work for. That decision is his own to make and not for me to judge, even though I may not understand it.

    What I do NOT agree with is his attempt to blame Democrats for his resignation. The only person he should be blaming for this is Mark Foley, for not only betraying his own office, but for betraying people he considered friends and colleagues.

    As I’ve said before, if Democrats are pushing for an investigation into who knew and didn’t know and who tried to cover it up, that is fine, but if Democrats are also found guilty, they should be treated the same as Republicans who are. Politicize and finger point until you’re blue in the face, but when it comes to something so heinous as abusing one’s position in Congress like Foley did, anyone who allowed it should be thrown out on their asses in my humble, liberal opinion.

    Comment by Britton — October 4, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - October 4, 2006

  35. I don’t agree with outing at all, and I’m one of the liberal camp.

    I do have one question: If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?

    It’s understood that due to career or relationships with family, not everyone can be out. Being out is a personal choice.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - October 4, 2006

  36. And as for the national gay rights advocacy organizations, don’t expect to hear much from them while this is all going on. They have no interest in throwing a life raft to the GOP. They are just going to stand by and watch the drama unfold.

    Comment by Chase — October 4, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - October 4, 2006

  37. Foley Setup? – Part V – Uncovering the Conspiracy…

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a political conspiracy unravel as fast as this one that involves former representative Mark Foley.
    Let’s recap.
    1. On September 29th Foley is approached by ABC NEWS about salacious Instant Messages with…

    Trackback by Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense — October 4, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - October 4, 2006

  38. GayPatriot –
    I totally agree with you. As a gay man in a 14-year relationship, with a great job and a great house, I’m not feeling the oppression that some gay people are apparently feeling. It’s not like I have to worry about getting hanged or getting my head chopped off for being gay (although if Democrats have their way, I may have spoken too soon). Sure, some people may hate me just because I’m gay, but then, many gay people hate me just because I’m Republican. But I guess that’s the “good” kind of hate…

    Cycloptichorn –
    The Republicans do try to stand by their values, as evidenced by the fact that the perpetrators in this scandal actually resigned. Too bad the same couldn’t be said of Democrats Gerry Studds, President Clinton, Barney Frank.

    Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - October 4, 2006

  39. […] Well, this unraveled faster than I believed possible. The left has overplayed the Foley hand to the point that there is now a brewing anti-homosexual witch hunt. Aimed at Republican staffers who happen to be gay. Gay Patriot takes a wee bit of exception to the whole matter. Full citizen?  No party has the power or right to tell me I am a full citizen.  Supporting or opposing gay marriage does not make you a hypocrite.  It makes you question the policy on its face.  I am a full citizen thanks to the US Constitution. […]

    Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » On The Jumping Of Sharks — October 4, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - October 4, 2006

  40. I do have one question: If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?

    That’s an excellent question. Frankly, I don’t get it either, and to me it only perpetuates the opinion that being gay is something to be ashamed of….an opinion that Democrats deride many on the right side of the political specturm for holding. To play into that hand for nothing but political gain is hardly admirable. But hey, it may yield some votes, right?

    Comment by BR — October 4, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - October 4, 2006

  41. I didn’t realize that Kirk Fordham was gay as someone said above. Because otherwise, GP’s claim that Kirk was victim of a gay witchhunt seems inexplicable. I don’t see this firing as evidence of a gay witchhunt as such, unless I am missing something.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - October 4, 2006

  42. I might ask Corn:

    What about those Democrats who are white-men and who serve a party that is anti-white-men? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals?

    Comment by james — October 4, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - October 4, 2006

  43. Dave-

    There are two sets of perps, of course – those that committed the acts, and those who knew about it and didn’t do anything about it.

    Perhaps part of the reason that Republicans seem to take more heat when they have ethical and moral problems… is because they continually trumpet their ethical and moral superiority as a major reason that people should vote for them over the Democrats.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - October 4, 2006

  44. But the point is that they admitted wrongdoing, took responsibility and resigned.

    Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - October 4, 2006

  45. “Kirk Fordham claims that he warned Hastert about Foley’s behavior two years ago. ”

    God I hope this is true – I have no use for Hastert. I would hope that a former chief of staff for Rep. Foley, one who held the position for 10 years, would have taken steps to bring a halt to behavior that was at once pathetic and deplorable had he been aware of it.

    Did Mr. Fordman also alert his current employer, Rep. Tom Reynolds? Doesn’t Tom Reynolds play a role in determining how the Republican party should focus its efforts in supporting candidates and incumbants in their runs for higher office? Couldn’t Rep. Foley been eased out of office?

    If Kirk Fordman had known that Rep. Foley had a predilection for high school aged males and said nothing to those in a position to put an end to it, I would view him as an enabler.

    Comment by lola — October 4, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - October 4, 2006

  46. Again,
    Fordham is AT FAULT for trying to cover this up.

    That is why he quit. Your attempt to lay blame on democrats only blows up in your face

    Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - October 4, 2006

  47. Why is this surprising?

    The biggest crime the left sees today is hypocrisy. And it doesn’t even matter if you, yourself, are a hypocrite. Merely having an association with people who, for instance, oppose same-sex marriage is hypocrisy enough for a gay person.

    I’m a conservative Republican, I don’t oppose same sex marriage. I’m not gay myself — but, if I were, I’m assuming that I’d be a hypocrite in their book….for consorting with people who oppose same sex marriage.

    Forgetting for a second that the Dems mostly oppose it too, this clearly points to one conclusion:

    Liberalism is their religion and a denial of that religion is grounds for retribution. If you are gay, or black, or Jewish, or a laborer and you do not support liberalism, you are an infidel.

    Comment by imsnooping — October 4, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - October 4, 2006

  48. “I do have one question: If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?”

    Because not everyone agrees that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I have a good friend who is very much in the closet due to his gay-bashing family. Certainly he and I agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay.

    If I were to announce to his family, with my friend present, at Thanksgiving dinner that he’s been actively and secretly gay for years, would he feel humiliated? Of course he would.

    (Here comes the rant… Brace yourself…)

    Speaking as a gay man in a stable relationship with an adopted son, I would not shed a single god damn tear if these self-important and self-indulgent “gay activists” got penile and rectal cancer. Not only does their incessant desire to portray gay people as “revolutionaries” in such a way to foster distrust for me as a gay man and especially as a gay parent harm myself and my child, but now they are fully willing to put the trustworthiness of gay men in general in the center of national discourse for the sake of partisan political hackery and demonizing those who are insufficiently pure for their own particular gay agenda. Ass-tumors for all of them!

    The “progressives” (those scare quotes are EARNED) are going along with it, too. Way to stand up for gay rights, stupid “progressive” bastards. The only thing they care about is hating their hated enemy. Everything else is disposable as politics dictate, and gays are usually the first to go in that regard.

    Comment by Loundry — October 4, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - October 4, 2006

  49. #41- Yeah, I’m not sure what basis there is to claim Fordham is gay. Is he out, or has gaypatriot accidently outed him?

    Regardless, the failure to face the facts of Fordham’s involvement in the Foley scandal undercuts the case. He worked for Reynolds and tried to keep the allegations out of the press. Whether he did it as a coverup for political reasons or to protect Foley’s family, he tried to keep them out of the press. That is why he resigned. He is not a victim of some random maybe-gay witch hunt.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 4, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - October 4, 2006

  50. As I mentioned on my site:
    “It would seem that if you can’t win an election on the issues, you win it on outing the gay members of the opposite party. Color me not surprised. Politics as pure perversion. If the moderates of this country have come to believe that the Republicans are “capable of anything,” just wait until they get a load of what the New! Improved! and Even More Degenerate Democrats can do.”

    Comment by Vanderleun — October 4, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - October 4, 2006

  51. I do have one question: If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?

    That’s easy: a person’s sexuality is their own business, assuming that it’s legal. If they want to be open about what they do behind closed doors — be it homosexuality or S&M or whatever — that’s completely their prerogative. But if they don’t, for whatever reason, that is also their prerogative.

    I’m not gay. And although I’m not at all ashamed of my own bedroom behavior, I’d just as soon it not be made public.

    The argument used to be “What goes on in the bedroom is nobody else’s business.” Now, apparently, it is: so long as you aren’t public about your sexuality.

    And if you aren’t going to be public about it yourself, by God…somebody else will make it public for you.

    Does a gay person in this country still have the right to remain in the closet? Or is this such a shameful thing to do that they must be outed, if they won’t do it themselves?

    Comment by imsnooping — October 4, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - October 4, 2006

  52. Gay Republican Witch Hunt and Outings…

    Seems that there is a list going around in the lefty circles aimed at “outing” gay republicans. Gay Patriot is outraged and says that anyone who values freedom and privacy should be too.
    ……

    Trackback by Stop The ACLU — October 4, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - October 4, 2006

  53. Well, it was only a matter of time before others joined Matt Drudge in attacking the victims. The conservative blog Passionate America ( http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/ which, by the bye, includes THIS blog in its list of favorite blogs) has outed one of Mark Foley’s victims, including publishing his full name, location, pictures, and email address.

    Will the operators of this blog condemn the publication of this kind of information? Seems that you guys used to be all for privacy and that kind of thing. How do you feel about conservatives publishing the names and pictures of people who were the victims of a sexual predator when they were children?

    Comment by Anonymous — October 4, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - October 4, 2006

  54. Dave, can you marry? If you and your partner sought, could you adopt children in every state? Can you file joint federal tax returns? If you changed companies, would that company offer you the same benefits a straight married employee would have?

    Yes, you may have achieved much. Yes, in some areas, you may be physically assaulted. There’s just something lacking in dignity when two people who love each other, regardless of gender, have to find legal work arounds to make sure each person is taken care of. And even then, we don’t get everything that heterosexual couples do.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - October 4, 2006

  55. The sickness of the rights knows no bounds.
    You rightists name page, BEFORE any investigation can happen.

    Comment by keogh — October 4, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - October 4, 2006

  56. The title of your piece can cause a misunderstanding of your point.
    I think some believe your title means:
    More Foley Fallout: The Gay “GOP Witchhunt” Begins
    .. but your piece has it saying ..
    More Foley Fallout: The “Gay GOP” Witchhunt Begins

    Comment by Neo — October 4, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - October 4, 2006

  57. BR, whether acknowledged or not, I think the practice of outing is meant to intimidate people into action by using fear.

    I came out of the closet because I felt living in one was undignified. The only thing less dignified is to strip a person of the choice as to whether or not to be out.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - October 4, 2006

  58. #51…Being gay is more than just a matter of what gender one sleeps with.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - October 4, 2006

  59. You know, the right to privacy use to mean something in this country. Now it’s all just going too hell!

    What in the world are we doing to ourseleves?

    Comment by Panther — October 4, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - October 4, 2006

  60. The reason why the “victim” was outed was because a blogger discovered that he had left the page program some time before that IM exchange and he was apparently 18 years of age at the time, and it was necessary to identify him and aspects about his career in order for the blogger to back up his claim. It’s just possible that Mark Foley, at least with respect to that one set of IMs, was being smeared. Smearers forfeit their right to anonymity, in my view.

    The timing of this scandal reminds me of the Anita Hill accusation, which liberal activist groups had information on, and held closely to their chests, only to spring it at the very last second when it became clear that Clarence Thomas might actually be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. The m.o. similarities are striking.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - October 4, 2006

  61. Patrick:

    The reason why the “victim” was outed was because a blogger discovered that he had left the page program some time before that IM exchange

    ALL of the inappropriate contact between Foley and the Pages was after they had left the program. So what does that have to do with revealing the kids’ identity?

    It’s telling that Foley hasn’t denied any of it, at all… accusations that he is being ‘smeared’ don’t hold much water in the face of non-denials.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - October 4, 2006

  62. James-
    No, we can’t marry. We are starting the process to adopt. We never looked into joint tax returns. I actually left a company that had same-sex benefits to work for a company that doesn’t. But so what?

    We’ve been to a lawyer to draw up the necessary paperwork so that he gets everything if I die. Personally, I don’t find it un-dignified that we had to do that. If that option wasn’t available, then yes, that would be a problem. But it is available.

    In my family, we basically learned we could have what we wanted, but it wouldn’t necessarily be handed to us. So the fact that we may have to put forth a little extra effort to get what we want or need is not a big deal.

    Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - October 4, 2006

  63. My earlier comment by “james” is not by the more frequent commenter “James”. I apologize to him for not choosing a more clearly different name.

    Comment by james — October 4, 2006 @ 5:50 pm - October 4, 2006

  64. The IMs have been consistently portrayed as an example of Foley engaging in sex chats with underage boys. At least that is how *I* understood the IMs. The fact that he engages in sex chats isn’t a smear, since he clearly did that, but the claim that he sex chatted with a underage page may very well be a smear. That is, if the blogger is right.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 4, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - October 4, 2006

  65. It is kind of hard to argue that there aren’t any dems advocating the idea of witch hunt.

    After all Bob Beckel-a routine democratic spokesman essentially said that gay congressmen shouldn’t be allowed to have contact with Pages (yes it is a paraphrase). He said it on Hannity and Colmes on Monday night I believe.

    I think it is sad that anyone things this is an okay or acceptable thing to do.

    As for being in the closet-in general I hope that nobody feels the need to stay in the closet, but some people do for their own reasons, and they shouldn’t be forced out, because somebody else doesn’t like their reasons. I have a very good friend who is gay-he is out in the community we grew up in, but his grandmother doesn’t know (she lives about 2 hours from where we grew up), and he doesn’t want to tell her (mostly because he isn’t sure she would understand it, and he likes the relationship he has with her). Now some may say his reasons are wrong, but I think it would be cruel for anyone to tell his grandmother, because they think his reasons are lacking.

    Comment by just me — October 4, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - October 4, 2006

  66. #48…I realize not everyone believes there’s nothing wrong with being gay.

    It’s a matter of perspective and personal choice, I suppose. When hiding my orientation from my family and friends, I didn’t feel like they knew me as I really am. In coming out to my mother, I actually told her that if she couldn’t learn to accept it, we’d have no relationship at all. Harsh? Absolutely. Do I regret my ultimatum? I do. She came to accept, but I shouldn’t have forced the issue. Still, I got to a point at which I wanted to be me 100% of the time; not straight James for family and gay James for tricks.

    As it pertains to this witchhunt, even this liberal has to admit that outing is not just counterproductive to the community an to gay conservatives bringing change in opinion to the GOP; it’s just cruel.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - October 4, 2006

  67. there’s anger among House Republicans

    Yes, Ian, whenever I want to know what the Republicans are thinking I ask Corn. Or might his perception of Republican actions and motives turn upon his belief that Republicans are a “party that is anti-gay” and “refuses to recognize [gays] as [] full citizen[s]”?

    Fordham was axed for COVERING FOR A PEDOPHILE!!!

    While wrong for its own reasons, whatever Rep. Foley did I see no indication at all that he was either attracted to or persued any prepubescent children (i.e. the correct definition of pædophile). Repeated claims and branding of a man who talked dirty to a young but sexually mature person as a “child molester” or “pædophile” only serves to lessen the meaning of real child molestors and to reinforce the “gay = pædophile” stereotype.

    If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why would being outed be humiliating?

    While I may not be the best to answer this, I’m not sure that “humiliation” is really the motivation at work. Perhaps these individuals just don’t want to deal with the various personal hassles gay men often detail. Or, given their involvement in politics, they don’t want to be labeled as “the gay ____” because, like Bruce, they consider themselves as Republican gays and not Gay Republicans.

    However, if one looks at the suffix in the word “homophobe”…well, a person who opposes gay marriage based on policy or personal beliefs might not truly be gay hating, but what about gay fearing?

    James, this question is silly, as it assumes the invented term “homophobe” is not only right but truly applicable to all of those to whom it is cast upon. Personally, I have always felt a more accurate term would have been something more like “mishomonist” (I have never studied Latin, so please don’t laugh too loud if you know what I’m trying to say) along the lines of “misogynist” or “misanthrope”. If someone hates gays why should we say he’s afraid of them? In any event, like I said, to accept this approbation to so wide a group as “those opposed to gay marriage” assumes they are all operating under the same motivation. I, for one, feel confident in saying my opposition has to do with neither fear nor hate.

    Comment by submandave — October 4, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - October 4, 2006

  68. Toqueermada Ascendant…

    As the Foley scandal broke, I noted how strange it seemed to me that some gay liberal commenters eschewed the general GLBT philosophy of compartmentalizing sexuality and disassociating homosexuality from behaviors such as ephebophilia and pedophilia. …

    Trackback by - The Malcontent - — October 4, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - October 4, 2006

  69. Blackmailing Gays…

    Again, the party doesn’t look to demonize “same-sexers”, we look to make everyone equal and no one above equal. Policies pushed by advocacy groups such as the NAACP, GLAAD and others seek special rights…

    Trackback by Environmental Republican — October 4, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - October 4, 2006

  70. first of all Bob beckel is a nobody on Fox. No democrat I know has any idea what he is or who he is. he’s not howard dean or hillary so don’t pretend he is some sort of force in the democrat party.

    Also, this is the worst stupidest most foul thing I’ve ever heard. that gay republicans would be forced to quit their jobs under the suspicion that THEY (not hastert ?) somehow were part of a conspiracy to allow foley’s abuses to continue. It IS a witchunt and if carried out will be as big a scandal as the page thing. anyone who knew about foley and didn’t say anything was doing it either waiting for an oppurtune time (democrats) or because they didn’t want to lose the seat to a democrat and/ or have a scandal (republican)

    Comment by lester — October 4, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - October 4, 2006

  71. #62…

    I actually left a company that had same-sex benefits to work for a company that doesn’t. But so what?

    I guess the point I’m trying to illustrate is that many companies that offer benefits to married couples but not to same-sex couples that are just as committed is, for me, an indicator of how well company policy handles gay and lesbian employees. My company also offered no same-sex benefits when I started. I joined a committee that drafted a proposal to get them. Now we have them.

    We are starting the process to adopt.

    Congratulations! My partner and I have decided to use a surrogate mother. In GA, the legislation is drafted and ready to file that would “relieve” us of the privilege of being able to adopt based on our sexual orientation. Also, our governor appointed to a state child agency a woman instrumental in creating a ban on gay foster parenting in her previous state. Scared? Yeah, we are…just a bit.

    We never looked into joint tax returns.

    No real need to look. In some states like Mass., couples can file joint returns at the state level. Never at the federal. And if the state has legalized gay marriage or civil unions, the same-sex benefits may be exempt from taxation, but never at the federal level for the portion that covers the same-sex partner.

    We’ve been to a lawyer to draw up the necessary paperwork so that he gets everything if I die.

    Good show. But. Gets expensive, though. I’m glad my partner and I had the means. In Louisiana, the law requires one to do just that, or the state will divide everything among survivors. The spouse is sure to get a piece regardless. A same-sex partner? Not a chance without that paper work. Marriage license would definitely be come in handy in that situation.

    In my family, we basically learned we could have what we wanted, but it wouldn’t necessarily be handed to us.

    I learned that in my family, too. Actually, mom always said that because I was a black male I’d have to work twice as hard because there were many negative stereotypes I would have to overcome. Overkill? Yes. But, I grew to be a self-reliant person and a decent business professional.

    I think what we may have is a bit of difference of opinion. Gay Patriot West mentioned that conservatives are for freedom and liberals are for equality. I can sort of see what he means. I don’t want a hand out, but I do want what’s fair.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - October 4, 2006

  72. Dave – there are plenty of benefits straight married couples get that you do not have the option to…beyond just leaving your estate to your partner. And in many states, that can be challenged by family members and since your relationship to your partner is not really valued in any way by many of those states, then it becomes if nothing else, a hassle that we should have to endure. Though I don’t see how any of that has anything to do with a supposed witch hunt. Kirk Fordham has worked for several members of Congress for many years, some of whom were decidedly anti gay in their voting records. That’s his business if he chooses to work for such people. I do think he has a right to privacy, as we all do (which oddly enough is argued for here but against by so many other Republicans on so many other issues). But the idea that there is some purge (when only one person has resigned) is taking place is a bit hasty. If this list had any power, those people Fordham has worked for would have dropped him years ago. But they did not. To deny that he resigned because he knows that it is going to be revealed who knew and didn’t know that Foley was behaving the way he was. And while I don’t think, if he gave warnings, that he should take the fall for this, I do think he knows it will minimize damage that is coming. And he can blame democrats for bringing it but the damage is deserved if it ends up being true. And the Republicans can’t blame the Democrats for wanting the truth without looking like they were okay with hiding it in the first place. They need to be just as vocal about demanding the truth or they will look like a bunch of hypocrites.

    Comment by Britton — October 4, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - October 4, 2006

  73. Policies pushed by advocacy groups such as the NAACP, GLAAD and others seek special rights…

    What special rights would those be? They seek for everyone to enjoy the same right: the right to have a permanent, recognized relationship with the person you love.

    In fact, it’s arguable that they are fighting for greater rights for straights.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 4, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - October 4, 2006

  74. Why does it surprise anyone the way the Left treats Gay Conservatives? It is the exact same way they treat Black Conservatives!

    Comment by BPorter — October 4, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - October 4, 2006

  75. [Deleted for violating terms of commenting at GayPatriot.]

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - October 4, 2006

  76. Foleygate Reloaded…

    Glass houses and all that….

    Trackback by A Blog For All — October 4, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - October 4, 2006

  77. They seek for everyone to enjoy the same right: the right to have a permanent, recognized relationship with the person you love.

    Everyone?

    Does “the person you love” include the minor of Mark Foley’s choice?

    Does it include Warren Jeff’s multiples?

    In short, whether or not you love someone is not sufficient grounds to grant you legal shortcuts. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not these shortcuts are necessary — and if so, what they are reinforcing.

    The vast majority of marriage benefits exist for the purposes of couples with children. The fact that infertile heterosexuals can get married does not invalidate that; what it simply means is that there should be a different set of rules based on the presence or absence of children.

    As to the rest:

    “Permanent” has nothing to do with the government; it has everything to do with the couple’s commitment.

    “Recognized”, in what context? Do you really need the government to validate that you are a couple?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - October 4, 2006

  78. I noticed the anti-outing post is locked out from responses, but I think it needs a response. I have no doubt that anti-gay conservatives (whether they are republican or democrat) will use this to go after gays who are either elected officials or work as staff on the hill. If someone is gay and lives their life with respect for themselves and others, then they have the right to be as out or in as they wish to be. However, closeted gays who work actively to pass anti-gay legislation and hurt other gays via the political process deserve to be outed for the hypocrits they are.

    Comment by Kevin — October 4, 2006 @ 6:37 pm - October 4, 2006

  79. #70 – James –
    Congratulations on the surrogate mother — how exciting! We thought about going the surrogate route, but decided on adoption. I’m sorry to hear that your adoption rights are in danger in GA, though. I think adoption is a different issue than marriage, and I would definitely fight to keep that right. It doesn’t sound like you were a victim of “overkill” in your childhood, but that you were made aware of the unfortunate realities that you would encounter. Sounds like you were definitely given the strength to conquer them!

    #71 – Britton –
    You’re right – there are many automatic rights that come with being married. But as far as contesting wills, that happens all the time to straight people, too! Just ask Anna Nicole.

    But to get back on topic.

    Of course, the whole witch hunt thing is pretty despicable. It seems that the liberals always talk about “choice” when it comes to other issues, but apparently “choice” doesn’t apply when it comes to one’s personal decision on whether to be “out” if one is Republican. I didn’t infer from the other links that Fordham was gay, so I can’t say that he’s a victim of the witch hunt, but it does sound like there definitely will be victims soon.

    Comment by Dave — October 4, 2006 @ 6:38 pm - October 4, 2006

  80. However, closeted gays who work actively to pass anti-gay legislation and hurt other gays via the political process deserve to be outed for the hypocrits they are.

    Why?

    Can’t you beat their ideas at the ballot box?

    What people like you will never realize, Kevin, is that outing is the last, desperate gasp of gays who are so repulsive to voters that they cannot get anything accomplished without digging in other peoples’ trash cans.

    Furthermore, what you also don’t realize is that outing works on the principle of appealing to the prejudice of an antigay electorate. You believe that if you reveal that someone is gay, their voters will immediately remove them from office — which might be the case. However, you have reinforced the belief of these antigay individuals that gays are not fit to hold public office — and they will elect someone who aligns with their beliefs to replace the individual removed.

    Example? Ed Schrock, replaced with Thelma Drake — who is even more antigay — and a resurgence in Virginia to constitutionally strip gays of rights.

    The reason you support outing, Kevin, is because you don’t realize why voters won’t support people like you, who mock their religious beliefs and claim that they are all hateful and ignorant bigots who want to send gays to concentration camps.

    People like myself, who CAN appeal to voters because we respect their right to different opinions, their religious beliefs, and their concerns, have no need to out, nor are we inclined to do it on principle.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - October 4, 2006

  81. “People like myself, who CAN appeal to voters because we respect their right to different opinions, their religious beliefs, and their concerns…”

    Is that why Mark Foley “loves the closet” (in his own words)? If “people like you” can appeal to voters, why is it that only closeted gay Republicans get elected, and those that do come out only do so when forcibly outed? If you guys can appeal to voters, then why can’t you get elected honestly, the way Tammy Bruce did?

    Name me one gay Republican who got elected to federal office from the outset running as an actual gay Republican.

    Not to mention the fact that “respecting their right to different opinions, their religious beliefs, and their concerns” hasn’t kept them from engaging in a “gay witchhunt” to purge the gays out of the GOP. For all you have done for them, you would think that they would be more grateful…

    Comment by Anonymous — October 4, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - October 4, 2006

  82. […] **update** Gay Patriot has a must read post on “The List” of gay Republican staffers that is circulating among DC and MSM circles. In the post he takes exception to David Corn’s article. Did it ever occur to Mr. Corn that the representatives and Senators he mentions that may or may not have gay staffers do not care about their sexual orientation yet value their participation as public servants? Is it not rational that you can hire a gay staffer, but at the same time oppose PUBLIC POLICY POSITIONS that you are morally or philosophically opposed to without being labeled a homophobe? […]

    Pingback by The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Greenwald’s latest hate filled post — October 4, 2006 @ 7:53 pm - October 4, 2006

  83. I don’t see this as a “gay” issue as much as the outing of a dirty old man who hits on young people, something I suspect a lot of hetero congressmen on both sides of the aisle did.
    For young people, gay is not a big issue.
    As for having gay staff and being conservative.
    You know, the reason I oppose gay marriage is because it will be used to prosecute those who think men and women are different. This is a deeper issue than being gay, since it echoes the radical feminist icon that there is no difference between men and women…but biologically there is, and much of the divorce and “equality” laws actually work against those of us who try to combine marriage and family and jobs.
    One confusion of David Corn is that he equates the puritanism of the religious right with the more easy going Catholic legalism.
    In Catholicism, adultery, gay sex, alcoholism, lying, taking bribes, and cheating are all equally bad…but hell, you can go to confession and get a “get out of hell free” card, so it’s not such a big thing.

    Comment by Boinkie — October 4, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - October 4, 2006

  84. i think we should be discussing the military commissions act of 2006 instead of this foley dickhead. and outing anyone is going to do more harm than good and is an ugly thing to be doing!

    Comment by ryan — October 4, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - October 4, 2006

  85. Goodness, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in evidence here. Please get a grip. These hystrionics are pathetic.

    First of all, I’ve only just noticed that GP has apparently outed Kirk Fordham. I certainly didn’t know he was gay. I’ve been reading all the usual liberal suspect blogs and I have to come here to find out that Kirk Fordham is gay. Wow and GP is ranting about outing gay Republicans – geez, he just threw a big boulder into his own glass house.

    It’s pretty clear to me that this is all a purge and blowback within the GOP. The Dems and liberals have no need to do anything except watch – and that seems to be what they’re doing. It doesn’t look like Fordham is going to go quietly and I suspect if he talks more, then things are going to get a heck of a lot worse for the “Foley Five” who have demonstrated such arrogance and incompetence as GOP House leaders. As I’ve said before, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving gang of criminals. And just four weeks before the election: PRICELESS!!!

    Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 9:25 pm - October 4, 2006

  86. The Only Place Worse Than The Closet

    Comment by refinish69 — October 4, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - October 4, 2006

  87. […] More: Gay Patriot blasts David Corn’s statement on an alleged-to-exist document circulating in Washington of supposedly gay Republican staffers. Here’s more on that “List”: On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.” The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network. […]

    Pingback by Sister Toldjah » Fraudian slip? — October 4, 2006 @ 9:50 pm - October 4, 2006

  88. “I don’t see this as a “gay” issue as much as the outing of a dirty old man who hits on young people, something I suspect a lot of hetero congressmen on both sides of the aisle did.”

    It is not an outing issue but in the weird, weird world or Republican politics it is more convenient for gay Republicans and homophobic Republicans to both make it about homosexuality or its attempted disclosure. That way, they get to avoid the more important ethics issue: The party’s leadership protected a known ephebophile for three years, refusing to respond to many complaints.

    And now they are accusing Democrats of making it a political issue — as if their refusal to investigate earlier wasn’t politically motivated. The Republicans made the rule and now they don’t wanna play by it.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - October 4, 2006

  89. Andrew Sullivan says that Fordham is openly gay.

    http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/hastert_vs_ford.html

    Comment by P O'Neill — October 4, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - October 4, 2006

  90. Republicans hate gays. Premise
    Republicans hire gays. Fact
    Some Republicans are gay. Fact
    Republicans hate gays??????? Broken premise
    Repbulicans hate pedophiles and gay pedophiles. Fact
    Oh, so that’s the distinction. New premise

    Comment by MikeM — October 4, 2006 @ 10:14 pm - October 4, 2006

  91. GayPatriot: When they come for you, I’ll defend you. I just don’t know why you wan’t to arm them.

    Comment by Jeff — October 4, 2006 @ 10:17 pm - October 4, 2006

  92. NDT, I think you forgot another point. If one uses Koerning as an example (the gentleman in MN who came out out of fear that he would be outed), some of his past supporters (not all) have said they’ll now vote for his opposition because they feel he lied to them by not revealing his orientation.

    It’s like you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. People who see nothing wrong with being gay may ask why one didn’t come out sooner, and people who do feel negatively about homosexuality my find an element of dishonesty in not being out.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 10:17 pm - October 4, 2006

  93. Dave, thanks.

    I’ve often told my partner that I’ve managed being openly gay by drawing on the lessons my mom taught me long before she accepted my being gay (dad was observant and pretty much okay with it from the beginning). Admittedly my life is pretty good. At the same time I have two many friends or acquaintances whose lives are quite different, and not for the better.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - October 4, 2006

  94. Andrew Sullivan says that Fordham is openly gay.

    Gee another news flash from Sully. Like this hasn’t been reported from the start.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 10:48 pm - October 4, 2006

  95. […] Gay Patriot informs us that, in fact, “that List was begun by Gay Leftists years ago.” He also remarks (emphasis mine): I am not surprised that this is where we are headed. But my question is…. why have our national gay organizations (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) not stepped in to stop this witchhunt which originated on the Gay Left in the first place? I think we know the answer. Tolerance and diversity of opinion is a one-way street for the Gay Liberals and their masters in the Democrat Party. […]

    Pingback by A Second Hand Conjecture » As The Worm Turns — October 4, 2006 @ 10:49 pm - October 4, 2006

  96. He also remarks (emphasis mine): I am not surprised that this is where we are headed. But my question is…. why have our national gay organizations (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) not stepped in to stop this witchhunt which originated on the Gay Left in the first place? I think we know the answer. Tolerance and diversity of opinion is a one-way street for the Gay Liberals and their masters in the Democrat Party. […]

    Yes, that’s it. Here we have the Republican leadership exercising tolerance of a known ephebophile who sexually harassed Congressional pages. Why can’t the Democrats be as tolerant as the Republicans????

    DANG!

    Comment by JonathanG — October 4, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - October 4, 2006

  97. So what about Drudge now reporting that the young man in question was actually 18 at the time of the IMs?

    Comment by Bildo — October 4, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - October 4, 2006

  98. Because Corn says Republicans have put together a list of their gay aides, it must be the same list Mike Rogers is maintaining? I understand your anger at Rogers, but surely you recognize that he is the type of self-promoting person who loudly takes credit for everything he is even remotely responsible for, right? If this new list is related to Rogers, I’m sure he broadcast that fact to every news outlet he can find. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions before you have at least some facts.

    Comment by Shalimar — October 4, 2006 @ 11:21 pm - October 4, 2006

  99. #97 grasping at straws: “So what about Drudge now reporting that the young man in question was actually 18 at the time of the IMs?”

    Sorry to burst your bubble of euphoria but from drudge:

    “A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday”

    Comment by Ian — October 4, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - October 4, 2006

  100. While I don’t approve of outing the gay staffers I do agree that anyone who would stand and vote against members of his or her own community should be called on it. And yes, Bruce, we ARE all Americans first but our rights are limited only based on who we are. This is the same as limiting the rights of people who are left handed. We pay taxes, we have jobs, and we do everything that everyone else does. Why can’t we have the same rights? Because we’re gay.

    I’m proud of my country but not my government. The Congressmen and Women who ARE gay and vote against us need to be known. The staffers not so much.

    Comment by Daimeon — October 5, 2006 @ 12:20 am - October 5, 2006

  101. #98 – Read Corn’s posting CLOSELY. He says the list has been put together by GAY POLITICOS.. NOT by Republicans.

    Jesus, people…. READ!

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 5, 2006 @ 12:20 am - October 5, 2006

  102. #100 — What “rights” don’t you have?

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 5, 2006 @ 12:21 am - October 5, 2006

  103. Name me one gay Republican who got elected to federal office from the outset running as an actual gay Republican.

    Note the caveats by the puppet, “from the outset” and “Federal office”.

    Of course the puppet neglects people like Jim Kolbe, or perhaps David Catania, or even Neil Giuliano, or Paul Koering.

    What the puppet also conveniently glosses over is that his organizations like Equality California openly campaign AGAINST gay Republicans, actually endorsing their non-gay Democratic opponents instead.

    One wonders if the puppet thinks that Barney “Pimp” Frank doesn’t count since he was outed in office by the criminal activities in which he had entangled himself and did not run as a gay Democrat.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 12:25 am - October 5, 2006

  104. North Dallas Thirty conveniently ignores HIS OWN point here… namely that it is only gay REPUBLICANS like himself who can “appeal to voters”. Barney Frank “doesn’t count” because you yourself have excluded him from the equation… he isn’t a Republican. Your point was that gay Republicans can appeal to the voters… I’m just asking for a single example of a gay Republican who has done so. Tammy Baldwin did it.

    Where are all the gay Republicans who are being honest FROM THE BEGINNING and successfully appealing to the voters? Why does it seem that they all have to start out being dishonest? Because they all do. Jim Kolbe got into office by lying. So did Koering and Foley and Dreier and Gunderson. If gay Republicans are sooooo good at appealing to voters, then why hide it?

    The honest answer, and one you will never hear from ND30, is that the Republican Party is so viciously hostile to gay people that an openly gay candidate could never successfully survive a GOP primary without the heavy advantage of incumbency already behind him. And THAT is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans don’t have a Tammy Baldwin. And at this rate, they never will.

    Comment by Anonymous — October 5, 2006 @ 12:46 am - October 5, 2006

  105. Pardon my ignorance, but someone want to tell me what the hell an “ephebophile” is?

    #81 writes

    Is that why Mark Foley “loves the closet” (in his own words)? If “people like you” can appeal to voters, why is it that only closeted gay Republicans get elected, and those that do come out only do so when forcibly outed? If you guys can appeal to voters, then why can’t you get elected honestly, the way Tammy Bruce did?

    Name me one gay Republican who got elected to federal office from the outset running as an actual gay Republican.

    Has it ever occurred to you that some of us could care less what you do in the privacy of your own home but we damn sure don’t want to sit and listen to you brag about it in public? We’d actually like to keep what precious few shreds of decency are left in our country intact.

    I also don’t want to know what my heterosexual friends are doing in their bedrooms. Nor do I want to know what my children (all grown) are doing in theirs, and I damn sure am not going to tell them what my wife and I do in ours!

    I would find “vote for me. I’m heterosexual” just as off-putting as I find “Vote for me. I’m homosexual”. What the hell does your sexuality have to do with public policy anyway?

    Quixotic, I know, but there you have it.

    We elected a lesbian Sheriff here in Dallas, in the last election. Not once did she discuss her “orientation” (I prefer sexual preference) or parade her partner in public, but the media trumpted it to the high heavens, as if it was some badge of honor. It got the anti-gay crowd stirred up, but this conservative could have cared less. (In case you haven’t noticed, Dallas is very conservative.)

    My sister is lesbian. I’ve never once asked her what she does with her partners. But I’ve slept under the same roof with her and her lover. And I’ve never once said, “So, sis, what’s it like to be lesbian?”

    I have a very good friend at work who is gay and a hemophiliac. (Imagine the battles he has to fight every day just to stay alive!) He has a picture of his partner (who I personally don’t care for at all) as the background on his computer. Yet not once has he pushed his “gayness” on me. It was I that brought the subject up, because I wanted to learn and I trusted him to respect my questions and answer them honestly. (And no, I didn’t ask him about sex. The questions were related to AIDS and public policy, and I thought if anyone would know those issues he would, because he has to worry about every once of blood that enters his body.)

    Some of you (I’m referring to guys like #81) could make a lot more headway if you’d keep your sex lives to yourselves and your mouths shut. I would have thought that the resounding defeats you suffered across the country in 2004 would have taught you that!

    Try reading Dale Carnegie’s “How To Win Friends and Influence People”. I don’t give a damn if you’re gay. But the fact that you are is not only none of my business, it’s rude of you to shove it in my face.

    Comment by antimedia — October 5, 2006 @ 12:55 am - October 5, 2006

  106. First of all, I’ve only just noticed that GP has apparently outed Kirk Fordham. I certainly didn’t know he was gay. I’ve been reading all the usual liberal suspect blogs and I have to come here to find out that Kirk Fordham is gay. Wow and GP is ranting about outing gay Republicans – geez, he just threw a big boulder into his own glass house.

    Or maybe you’re merely an uneducated idiot — or willfully blind.

    Aravosis said he obtained the latest information about the five-term congressman from Foley’s former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham.

    Fordham, who is gay, headed up fund-raising efforts for Foley’s aborted Senate campaign and is now the finance director for one of the remaining GOP primary candidates in that race: Mel Martinez, George W. Bush’s former Housing & Urban Development secretary. Martinez has come out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    Fordham denied ever speaking with Aravosis and told the Blade, “I just don’t discuss Congressman Foley’s personal life with reporters, but I’m not sure what their motive is in outing him, other than to draw attention to themselves. Foley has a good track record with gay issues and opposes the FMA.”

    Asked for comment, Foley spokesperson Jason Kello re-issued the congressman’ statement on the amendment.

    “The issue we are facing right now is whether Congress will approve a Family Marriage Amendment — something the Senate is posed to act on soon,” Foley said. “I oppose this amendment — and I am confident it will fall short of the votes it needs and will go nowhere.”

    A simple Google search, i.e. “Fordham is gay” would have pointed out that story and several others as far back as 2003.

    In short, IanRaj, you slandered GayPatriot — and you either did it out of complete idiocy or, more likely, mendacity.

    And to your next raving point:

    It is not an outing issue but in the weird, weird world or Republican politics it is more convenient for gay Republicans and homophobic Republicans to both make it about homosexuality or its attempted disclosure. That way, they get to avoid the more important ethics issue: The party’s leadership protected a known ephebophile for three years, refusing to respond to many complaints.

    LOL……but IanRaj, all of your sockpuppet identities have made it clear that there is nothing wrong with adults having sex with teenagers and children.

    Second, what you conveniently leave out is that the Republican leadership was acting on emails, not the emails AND instant messages that the Democratic leadership had and delayed acting upon — even though, according to Democrats, any delay endangered children.

    Finally, given that you’ve already demonstrated above that you’re either too foolish or too dishonest to tell the truth of a situation or intelligently interpret facts, why should we believe that you’re trying anything other than a coverup?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 1:04 am - October 5, 2006

  107. Where are all the gay Republicans who are being honest FROM THE BEGINNING and successfully appealing to the voters? Why does it seem that they all have to start out being dishonest?

    David Catania and Neil Giuliano ran for office as openly gay Republicans.

    I can list you five openly-gay Republicans who just won their party primaries – Steve Sion, for one.

    Of course, the problem is that you’re not supposed to know that, because it exposes that “Equality” California is merely a puppet organization of the Democratic Party and will actually endorse more antigay candidates rather than endorse a Republican.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 1:15 am - October 5, 2006

  108. Oh this is just too rich… so Repubs, who don’t trust Dems as far as they can throw them, are now using a list given to them by Dems, to tell them which of their most trusted associates are gay.

    Seems to me, if I was a “Gay Politico,” this would be the time to really screw over (so to speak) some Repub staffers I really didn’t like…

    Comment by The Evil Midnite Bomber — October 5, 2006 @ 1:18 am - October 5, 2006

  109. Or even better, to take out some really effective ones.

    Comment by The Evil Midnite Bomber — October 5, 2006 @ 1:36 am - October 5, 2006

  110. #107: “Neil Giuliano ran for office as openly gay Republicans.”

    Gee, to not know that Neil was in the closet when he was first elected as mayor of Tempe, you must be either an idiot or a liar. Both in your case, I suppose. BTW, have you been practising the phrase “Speaker Pelosi”? Be careful, I wouldn’t want your head exploding all over some innocent bystander!

    Comment by Ian — October 5, 2006 @ 2:11 am - October 5, 2006

  111. #106: Are you imagining things again? Because I don’t even recognize the quote you are attributing to me (raj doesn’t seem to be around this thread.) Maybe you’re fantasizing. In any event, you would appear to need help. This implosion of the House GOP seems to be getting to you.

    Comment by Ian — October 5, 2006 @ 2:22 am - October 5, 2006

  112. LOL….and now IanRaj is trying to argue that Neil Giuliano was never elected as a gay person.

    Right.

    Another lie by IanRaj exposed; Giuliano ran in numerous elections as a gay person.

    That’s not something IanRaj likes to admit; after all, it makes obvious that Republicans have no problem with electing gay people — just with hatemongering gay Democrats like himself.

    But we understand why he’s whining so; IanRaj is desperately trying to cover up the clear, proven fact of his lie up above in claiming that GayPatriot outed Kirk Fordham.

    IanRaj, you’re a coward who cannot admit that he was caught in a lie — and you’re making it more obvious.

    You will apologize to GayPatriot immediately for slandering him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 2:26 am - October 5, 2006

  113. #7
    I’ll drink to that.
    I haven’t read far enough, so it may be covered already, but I have to ask the old question:

    What about the “democrats” who oppose gay marriage?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 5, 2006 @ 3:36 am - October 5, 2006

  114. These are PEOPLE and their private lives are nobodys business even if they work in the public sector.

    Which is why individual rights are the key and collectivism the threat.

    Think about it…

    When that genetic test is developed that allows for determination of a ‘gay’ child, how many New York minutes until ‘gay’ Americans become pro-Life?

    I personally don’t care whether it’s genetic or choice. Because it’s NONE OF MY BUSINESS… I’m even tolerant of the evil of 1st tri-mester abortions.

    I’m just saying… if you are an identifiable ‘group’… just beware of the risks of being a ‘group’ first and a person second.

    Comment by DANEgerus — October 5, 2006 @ 3:38 am - October 5, 2006

  115. #25
    My point was, however, that what one is and how one is treated are two different things, and affects one’s experience as an American.

    If you know what you are, why do you give a rat’s ass about what others think?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 5, 2006 @ 3:55 am - October 5, 2006

  116. “what one is and how one is treated are two different things, and affects one’s experience as an American” sounds like a pile of Boo Freaking Hoo. When the Islamists come to saw your head off you will see what affects your experience.

    Comment by anon — October 5, 2006 @ 4:40 am - October 5, 2006

  117. GP didn’t out Fordham. Living in South Florida, we knew that Fordham was gay. Like most gay South Floridians (and I mean those living in Broward and Dade), I didn’t understand how Fordham could work for Martinez either. I still cannot get my head around it, but whatever. My point is, GP didn’t out Fordham.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 5, 2006 @ 5:39 am - October 5, 2006

  118. Jesus, this is the stupidist line of reasoning I’ve ever seen.

    Until the the right-wingers made it an issue, Fordham being gay wasn’t an issue. Well, except with a few insecure nut-jobs with small brains and are looking for any excuse to absove Republican leadership for their massive failure.

    Let’s be clear, this is just like Cardinal Law protecting the child molesting priests. There was a choice to be made:

    The children or the organization.

    Both made the same wrong choice: the organization.

    Both kept the problem hidden until it couldn’t be hidden any longer. Law resigned. Haslert will be forced out eventually.

    Please try to keep up. It’s not about Foley any longer. It’s about the corruption of power. It’s about people like my family who’ve been Republicans for as long as there’s been a Republican party. It’s about my cousin who sent her two boys off to be pages, one in 2001 and one in 2004. She’s hopping mad right now and she’s got a hell of a big mouth and a lot of endurance, plus a political cachet to be heard.

    The Democrats took 40 years to corrupt themselves into a second-rate part, lose the House and marginalize themselves. For the Republicans, looks like it’ll be 12 years. Because once they lose the house, all the chickens are going to come home to roost. And it won’t be pretty.

    Comment by Moses — October 5, 2006 @ 6:56 am - October 5, 2006

  119. #101 – Read Corn’s posting CLOSELY. He says the list has been put together by GAY POLITICOS.. NOT by Republicans.

    I did read closedly. “Gay politicos” and “Republicans” are NOT mutually exclusive terms. A clue to this might have been the fact that the list consists entirely of alleged gay Republican politicos.

    Comment by Shalimar — October 5, 2006 @ 7:46 am - October 5, 2006

  120. Hey, antimedia… If you don’t know what your heterosexual friends do in their bedrooms, then how do you know they are heterosexuals?

    Comment by Anonymous — October 5, 2006 @ 9:16 am - October 5, 2006

  121. As a straight, married, male Republican, I have a question to which I would appreciatre an honest answer. This seems like a good place to ask it.

    Is the average adult homosexual man more likely to try to bed a 16-year old male than an adult heterosexual man is to try to bed a 16-year old female?

    Also, change the age to 8 and answer as well.

    Note I am not asking about fantasies or desires, but rather a bona fide attempt to do the act.

    Comment by Chester White — October 5, 2006 @ 9:31 am - October 5, 2006

  122. As a straight, married, male Republican, I have a question to which I would appreciate an honest answer. This seems like a good place to ask it.

    Is the average adult homosexual man more likely to try to bed a 16-year old male than an adult heterosexual man is to try to bed a 16-year old female?

    Also, change the age to 8 and answer as well.

    Note I am not asking about fantasies or desires, but rather a bona fide attempt to do the act.

    Comment by Chester White — October 5, 2006 @ 9:32 am - October 5, 2006

  123. #112: “Giuliano ran in numerous elections as a gay person.”

    Gawd, you really have a reading comprehension problem. I said: “Neil was in the closet when he was first elected as mayor of Tempe”. He came out (when threatened with being outed) while he was a very popular mayor. If you had bothered to read the article to which you linked, even you could have figured it out. The point is Giuliano was in the closet until AFTER he became a successful politician.

    Comment by Ian — October 5, 2006 @ 9:45 am - October 5, 2006

  124. Ian-

    Unless you apologize for the Fordham slander, you will be banned from this site immediately.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 5, 2006 @ 9:54 am - October 5, 2006

  125. #124: Ok I apologize. My mistake. Btw, there were others BEFORE me who also thought you had outed Fordham. See

    http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=1723#comment-131805 and

    http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=1723#comment-131829

    Comment by Ian — October 5, 2006 @ 10:29 am - October 5, 2006

  126. Loundry,

    re:

    “If I were to announce to his family, with my friend present, at Thanksgiving dinner that he’s been actively and secretly gay for years, would he feel humiliated? Of course he would.”

    That is a phony argument. The humiliation in the example here isn’t the humiliation of the sexual choice, but rather the inappropriateness of the situation.

    If you were a straight heterosexual male attending Easter Mass and your straight heterosexual female wife stepped forward and announced to the congregation that you, her straight heterosexual husband, ate out her pussy last night and she loved it, you would also feel humiliated. But again, as in yopur example, the humilation has NOTHING to do with heterosexuality or sexual preference; on the contrary, the humiliation has EVERYTHING to do with the inappropriateness of the situation.

    Even small children understand that.

    If you have to reveal a secret to your father-in-law, perhaps there are better options than vomiting at the Thanksgiving Dinner table. That’s simply common sense and decency.

    Regarding the outing on gay men — I believe all men and women are entitled to their privacy. The late Canadian PM Trudeau said it best, that the state has no business interfering in the bedrooms of the nation.

    But really, the premise of the original question is not invalid. If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, then why do we hide it? Is it because we are ashamed? Ashamed of what? Our own deviancy? We need to accept ourselves and come out of the closet and stop living a lie. But that’s for men to decide for themselves. Some are brave. Some are cowards. As it is in all walks of life. I think that’s what many gay men are fearful of — not exposing their sexual preference, but exposing their cowardice, because they still feel ashamed of who they are. That’s not a crime. Just a psyhcological dysfunction of insecure men who prefer to live the lie.

    re:

    “I would not shed a single god damn tear if these self-important and self-indulgent “gay activists” got penile and rectal cancer.”

    Some people get their hurt feelings hurt worse than others and become more unhinged and vicious than others. Your vile and bitter feelings directed towards others tells me a lot about shame so easily mutates into misanthropy and violence.

    Comment by Leo Drongo — October 5, 2006 @ 10:42 am - October 5, 2006

  127. #14: Real patriots do not work for The State.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 5, 2006 @ 11:38 am - October 5, 2006

  128. #26 Barry: To those who say Republicans oppose homosexual rights- you have it wrong. They oppose special privileges and preferential treatment for any one group.

    Which particular Republicans seek to end the special marriage privilege for heterosexual couples? Because (s)he’d get my vote — the State doesn’t have any business blessing particular human relationships.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 5, 2006 @ 11:42 am - October 5, 2006

  129. Is the average adult homosexual man more likely to try to bed a 16-year old male than an adult heterosexual man is to try to bed a 16-year old female?

    Nope. Equal likelihood, once you consider all things.

    What may be confusing you is that, as IanRaj demonstrates, Democratic gays see nothing wrong or immoral with bedding minors — they call laws, for instance, that would criminalize it “imposing religious dogma”.

    This isn’t really driven by their sexuality, though. It’s driven by the fact that they are committed to groups like the ACLU, which defends pedophiles like NAMBLA, the pro-abortion groups that encourage teenage sex as a means of increasing their bottom line, and the leftists who want to dismantle marriage and consider children having sex to be necessary to their normal development.

    If you look at Republican gays, for instance, many of those here who are raising children, we will tell you flatly opposite. We are much more strongly in favor of laws that criminalize sexual activity with minors consistently so that predators like Foley can be punished.

    The reason gays are so misunderstood in the mainstream media is because the majority of the ones in the public eye are like IanRaj — they loudly condemn underage sex as wrong and immoral, but then claim that acting to stop it is “imposing religious dogma”. This is part of the reason this story is resonating so strongly; people are used to “gay activists” being duplicitous on issues.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 12:39 pm - October 5, 2006

  130. Re:

    It’s driven by the fact that they are committed to groups like the ACLU, which defends

    drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh.

    Comment by Duff McWiggler — October 5, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - October 5, 2006

  131. Republican Party to Purge Homosexuals From Its Midst?…

    GayPatriot is reporting that the Republican party may begin to purge itself of gay identified staffers, etc.  He lists Kirk Fordham as the first casualty.  I think Mr. Fordham’s departure has more to do with his direct involvement and his acti……

    Trackback by Blowhard — October 5, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - October 5, 2006

  132. “anonymous” asks

    Hey, antimedia… If you don’t know what your heterosexual friends do in their bedrooms, then how do you know they are heterosexuals?

    The same way I know my gay friend is gay. I saw a picture of his partner on his computer, and he spoke of him in loving terms. I don’t need a graphic demonstration to figure the rest out. But I have a great deal of respect for him simply doing the same things that all people in love do rather than shoving his “gayness” in my face and asking me to “accept” it.

    Get it?

    And frankly, if some of my hetereosexual friends really arent hetereosexual, so what? I don’t care, and I don’t need to know what they do in their bedrooms. What the hell does what you do sexually have to do with friendship anyway?

    Leo writes

    But really, the premise of the original question is not invalid. If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, then why do we hide it? Is it because we are ashamed? Ashamed of what? Our own deviancy? We need to accept ourselves and come out of the closet and stop living a lie. But that’s for men to decide for themselves. Some are brave. Some are cowards. As it is in all walks of life. I think that’s what many gay men are fearful of — not exposing their sexual preference, but exposing their cowardice, because they still feel ashamed of who they are. That’s not a crime. Just a psyhcological dysfunction of insecure men who prefer to live the lie.

    So every gay who doesn’t openly flaunt their sexuality is a coward? Boy do you have a warped mind!

    Gay men who prefer to not tell their anti-gay friends and/or family are not cowards. They value those relationships more than they do being “honest” and they’re realistic enough to know when a relationship would be threatened by that knowledge.

    What you claim is bravery is nothing more than selfishness. Only a person who has no consideration for others would feel the need to publicly confront people about their sexual preferences. Someone who is comfortable about their sexual preferences would simply live their lives as they see fit without feeling the need to announce it to the world.

    What you describe as courage is really nothing more than adolescent immaturity that reveals a profound form of insecurity.

    Comment by antimedia — October 5, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - October 5, 2006

  133. Bravo, antimedia!

    I think you nailed exactly what the issue is: people have confused being open and honest with being confrontational.

    People like Anonymous think being gay is something that should be used for purposes of power over other people. They are like black Americans whose attitude is, “My skin color excuses all”.

    The vast majority of the gays you will find here have a totally different attitude. We believe that our sexual orientation has little to no bearing on what we do on a day to day basis, nor does it excuse us from the same social and work responsibilities as have straight people.

    Most of the antigay backlash, in my opinion, is because gays like Anonymous have used being gay as a reason to support unpopular leftist causes, like allowing minors to have sex and have abortions without parental consent or notification, or anti-Semitic terror supporters and Democrats like Cindy Sheehan, or punishing those who work to pay for those who won’t, or antireligious bigotry….you get the idea. It’s no surprise that people then associate being gay with being undesirable

    We are slowly trying to undo this, but as you see from other posts here on GP, the Democrats see diversity of political opinion in the gay community as a threat to their power — and thus have unleashed people like Anonymous to berate and harass gays who differ, just as they send black people to throw oreos at and call “house slaves” and “Uncle Toms” those black people who do not automatically do the Democrats’ bidding.

    Thank you for supporting your friend and being willing to look past the screaming idiots like Anonymous. We need more people to do that, and we need your help in showing them that not all gays are like Anonymous.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - October 5, 2006

  134. …As a straight, married, male Republican, I have a question to which I would appreciate an honest answer. This seems like a good place to ask it. Is the average adult homosexual man more likely to try to bed a 16-year old male than an adult heterosexual man is to try to bed a 16-year old female?

    As a Gay, single Republican who’s over 40, my response is that the straight guy is. Assuming a 20-plus difference in ages I’ll cite popular culture as examples. Marketing sexy teenager girls to middle-aged (straight) men is a given in advertising and pornography. Girls in “schoolgirl” outfits are practically a stereotype.

    Most older gay men are not attracted to adolescent high-school boys. Once there’s a number of years difference, the lower boundry generally is college or post-college guys at-least. If for no more selfish and superficial reason tham men develop later than girls and the “masculine” body-type doesn’t manifest itself until the twenties. A sixteen year-old boy is still a child-physically…and most gay men are NOT interested in children. Also, looking at the shelves of a mixed-audience porn shop; the overwhelming age/appearance of the “girls” is much younger than the “boys”. Most of the popular gay porn stars are built-guys in the twenties and thirties….the young(ish)-twinks are a sub-market.

    (an unscientific opinion….)

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 5, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - October 5, 2006

  135. Oh you quisling Gay-republicans. You live in your ivory towers with your boy toys and expect to have real lives. you’re pathetic. what part of the anti-gay GOP don’t you understand. you’re gay uncle tom’s of the worst sort. do you really think you’re money will buy into republican country clubs? will you have lives beyond what you have to intimidate or spend for companionship? you’re disgusting.

    Comment by longboardersurf — October 5, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - October 5, 2006

  136. LOL, longboardersurf…..spoken like a true gay Democrat.

    Personally, I have a very satisfying life.

    I don’t play golf, so getting into or out of the country clubs is no problem.

    I can’t recall ever being discriminated against when I asked to join or be included in memberships, clubs, or professional organizations.

    I’ve never had any trouble getting sex or companionship, and I have a wonderful husband whom I adore — who is, actually, one of a very few reasons I don’t condemn gays who tend to vote Democrat categorically.

    I suppose you like this fiction that we gay conservative/Republican types are all miserable, but that could not be farther than the truth. The vast majority of the ones I know are happy, partnered, successful people who are both pragmatic and optimistic. They enjoy their jobs and coworkers and tend to be heavily involved in community affairs — except for gay community affairs.

    Mainly because they tend to gravitate towards the straight people, who don’t abuse them and namecall them, and away from the “gay community”, which does.

    I understand your confusion; as a good Democrat, you’ve been fully programmed to believe that you cannot survive off the plantation, that everyone who isn’t gay hates you, and that the Democrats are doing you a favor by even acknowledging your existence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 5, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - October 5, 2006

  137. I know I can’t afford a surfboard.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 5, 2006 @ 4:13 pm - October 5, 2006

  138. I assume it will end when your republican buddies along with the religious jerkoffs they allow to dictate to them will decide it is time to render you.

    Comment by jerry — October 6, 2006 @ 11:12 am - October 6, 2006

  139. antimedia

    re:

    “So every gay who doesn’t openly flaunt their sexuality is a coward? Boy do you have a warped mind!

    Gay men who prefer to not tell their anti-gay friends and/or family are not cowards.”

    I disagree. I believe it is cowardice, and as I said earlier, there’s no crime in that. It’s insecurity, pathology and fear.

    You can imagine what it would be like for a black person ashamed of their color, walking through life hiding behind a burqa. It’s not a crime and it’s not a life I’d like to live. But it’s moral cowardice.

    Have a great weekend!

    Comment by Leo Drongo — October 6, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - October 6, 2006

  140. “Anti-gay friends”? Well, I guess I must have standards. If someone is anti-gay they are not my friend. To me, it is like joining a fraternity or sorority, if I have to pay to have “friends” they were never my friends to begin with.

    Comment by HDBiker — October 6, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - October 6, 2006

  141. When I first came across this site I thought this has to be some kind of joke, some bitter satire. How little we know of each other as we stay in our camps looking with intrepidation at each other all the while ignoring our common ground, which is extensive. We like our stereotypes to keep the camps apart. As an ultra right winger I’m here to tell you folks that there is a very large bunch of American people who don’t care about anyone’s sexual preference, more than some here want to realize. To many of us, it’s like driving a Ford or a Chevy – it’s really that goddamn simple. The whole point about Foley is that he is an aggressive bastard, the kind that uses sex for personal gain and control. I don’t really understand this business of “outing” but clearly it is for gain/control. Foley needs to be prosecuted for abuse of official power – I doubt they can nail him for pedophilia based on those IMs, but if they could hang him for that, all the better. Anyone seeking to make this a mere political issue is tyring to put their own sexual preferences above who they are as humans, neighbors, co-workers, citizens. This is patently evident by there being no concern at all expressed for Foley’s victims and the now-developing counter mind set that says this was just a bunch of younger homos mad at an older homo. Yup, there goes the notion that voters are going to switch parties en masse because of Foley. That’s the type of crap we step into when the issue of who we share our bodies with becomes a political and moral issue. Look at the rhetoric we use in discussing sexuality. Hitting on someone – my God! what an expression for wanting to share your body with someone you like and trust. Picking someone up – like a mere commodity to be discarded when done using. The list goes on and on. No wonder common values get shuffled to the side when the straight and gay camps look at each other. And what stupid names – gay and straight. What the hell does that exactly mean, those terms? I have a bunch of grandkids who talk about ‘straight and gay’ like I talk about Fords and Chevys. I admit I still put a string of garlic around my neck at times when venturing too near your camp but they don’t and they are the ones that will be running things when I’m maggot food. 50 years ago, most Blacks couldn’t vote. Of course anyone with a clean record and good record of employment and references should be able to adopt and get custody of a child in a divorce. Marriage? nope – the majority thinks its for male and female, but my grandkids will change that most likely. As far as politics, I would suggest you folks here look very closely at the real nature of radical islam and what sharia law and al qu’ran says about people who share their bodies as you folks do. Stoning and hanging makes the American redneck homophobe rather benign, so I would not cozy up too much to any philosophy that treats this as a mere cultural thing to be resolved with good police work and economic policy. They are coming for all of us but you good folks will be the first to have your heads lopped off. I hope you don’t ban me for cussing, but if you must, you must.

    Comment by goesh — October 6, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - October 6, 2006

  142. Most of the antigay backlash, in my opinion, is because gays like Anonymous have used being gay as a reason to support unpopular leftist causes, like allowing minors to have sex and have abortions without parental consent or notification, or anti-Semitic terror supporters and Democrats like Cindy Sheehan, or punishing those who work to pay for those who won’t, or antireligious bigotry….you get the idea. It’s no surprise that people then associate being gay with being undesirable

    are you insane ? really. are you ?

    what on earth do gays have to do with any of that ?

    Comment by cleek — October 6, 2006 @ 5:51 pm - October 6, 2006

  143. Personally, as long as the GOP gains points with its base by bashing gay people…I don’t care if we out them all!

    Comment by James1 — October 7, 2006 @ 1:21 am - October 7, 2006

  144. what on earth do gays have to do with any of that ?

    Exactly my point.

    But talk to leftists like Matt Foreman, who think abortion is a gay issue.

    I particularly love this insane line:

    Our individual and family needs are inextricably linked with all other Americans – we love and have sex; women in our community get pregnant, need the assistance of fertility clinics to do so, or choose or need to end a pregnancy; both men and women in our community choose to – or choose not to – have children.

    If someone can explain to me how gay men or lesbians are getting pregnant from sex, I’d love to hear it. And if lesbians are choosing to get pregnant and then have an abortion, they’re a little to the left of sick.

    This is the kind of leftist drivel to which being gay is linked by these whores like Foreman.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 7, 2006 @ 2:55 am - October 7, 2006

  145. […] Gay Patriot has a good response to David Corn: Full citizen? No party has the power or right to tell me I am a full citizen. Supporting or opposing gay marriage does not make you a hypocrite. It makes you question the policy on its face. I am a full citizen thanks to the US Constitution. […]

    Pingback by Snarky Bastards » Blog Archive » On the Sickness of the Left — October 7, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - October 7, 2006

  146. I am a conservative – I am 50. A neocon, social moderate, fiscal conservative, environmental conservationist – two kids, love my wife, vote for Bush because of national security but would just as easily vote for Lieberman for his moral stance.

    Ok – here’s the deal on gay people. Who fucking cares!

    Its none of my business what you do in your bedroom.

    Any questions?

    PS I grew up in the Midwest. I think most of my contemporaries feel the sam.

    Comment by Kevin — October 7, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - October 7, 2006

  147. Leo writes

    I disagree. I believe it is cowardice, and as I said earlier, there’s no crime in that. It’s insecurity, pathology and fear.

    You can imagine what it would be like for a black person ashamed of their color, walking through life hiding behind a burqa. It’s not a crime and it’s not a life I’d like to live. But it’s moral cowardice.

    Leo, did you think about this before you wrote it? (I’m serious.)

    A black man would have to hide his skin (as you point out) in order to hide the fact that he is black. A gay man has to – act perfectly normal to “hide” the fact that he’s gay. For a gay man to display “courage” as you describe, he has to trumpet to the world, “Look at me! I’m gay!”. That isn’t courage. It’s selfishness.

    As I said before, it’s perfectly possible to live your life as a gay person without annoncing it to everyone you meet. And it isn’t an indication of shame or cowardice. Running around flaunting your sexuality and insisting that everyone accept that and honor your for it is. It reminds me of the famous line from MacBeth – Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    Comment by antimedia — October 7, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - October 7, 2006

  148. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a gay person would be a member of the Republican Party in the first place. This is the group that vehemently supports “don’t ask, don’t tell.” After all, this is the “family values” crowd. And, don’t forget, the present occupant in the White House was pushing for the “marriage amendment.”

    Comment by Jean Standish — September 15, 2008 @ 10:22 pm - September 15, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.